Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Community Approaches SCO
An anonymous reader writes "eWeek has an article about the open source community approaching SCO. SCO now says there are over a million lines of offending code in Linux and they still won't show them to anybody."
...in which Raymond said that if there was infringing code in the Linux kernel, "our community wants no part of it and will remove it.
I don't think that SCO wants those lines removed, because their whole business plan now seems based on those lines being in there.
Not much new there, except to say that SCO must be using the RIAA's supply of calculators to determine how many lines of code are infringing. There are approximately 30 million lines of code in the kernel:
http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/
And SCO is claiming that 3.3% of the Linux kernel is theirs? From a company that did nothing with Linux until it acquired a GPL distribution? Right.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Chris
Ever wonder how APR works? Stop on by!
Subscribe for free to my show!
... the offending code to be removed if they're not showing anyone what they claim are the problem lines?
Who exactly is this story talking about? The "Open Source Community" is being represented in the article by someone called Jeff Gerhardt. Familiar name? Not to me... seems to be the host of a radio show about Linux.
The fact that he has an email from Eric Raymond hardly qualifies him as a representative of the entire Open Source community. If you read the quotes from the email it is not an approach to SCO either.
If this article said that OSI, FSF, OSDL, Linus, etc. had approached SCO it might have been worth posting. In its current form it would be better titled "Some guy with radio show hands out copies of email from Eric Raymond".
John.
1. Claim that there are IP violations in linux
2. Prevent any linux developer from removing the violations from the source
3. Profit with license fees
the nda agreement is intentionally made so strict, open source community wants to remove the million lines of infrigting code, but if they do that, sco can't charge license fees from it, so naturally they won't let anyone see what they have
why does anyone care? they can't sue anyone without showing the "proof", so just relax and don't care. and stop writing stories about it.
Apparently, he said "millions", so that would be at least 40% of the code. I can't believe how farcical this whole circus is getting. It's like SCO is actively trying to make sure they'll lose big by coming up with more and more ridiculous arguments. I feel like I'm watching a bad movie or something...
But no, there is a logical answer to this. Evident if one RTFAs, as the the quote from which the number was taken from is by Jeff Gerhardt, not an SCO spokesman nor anything like it:
we want to be able to look at the offending code without prejudicing our future careers and so that we can remove any offending code, even if that is a million lines
That is not a reference that SCO has claimed there are 1000000 lines stolen, that is a comment saying that even if they did, LINUX could be repaired. But I must consede that while SCO has not claimed this in this article I wouldn't be suprised if they did somewhere else.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Perhaps a more informative estimate would be to take the difference in the number of lines in the 2.2 kernel vs the 2.4 kernel, since SCO claims 2.2 is fine but 2.4 has copied code.
3,377,902 (2.4) - 1,800,847 (2.2) = 1,577,055
In other words, SCO claims that 2/3 of the improvements in the 2.4 series kernel belong to them. That is a rather unrealistic statement since a lot of those enhancements didn't come from IBM.
Every time there's a press release the number grows. Just last week didn't they say something like 168,000 lines of code?
Now it's millionS -- not just 1, but plural, aka many. My guess, based on their claim of derivative work, is that they are saying that 5,100,081 (2.5.37, per previous post) lines are infringing. This doesn't mean they are direct copies, just infringing.
At first, SCO's action surprised and stunned me. Then it became funny to watch them "foaming at the mouth" in the various press releases. Now things are just getting annoying. I'll be glad when they're squashed and this is all over. I'll be even more glad if the SEC finally gets involved and wins a guilty verdict. Perhaps we should change the SCO logo to a crooked SCO, kind of like that crooked E from Enron?
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
Hmm. Students of data mining will be aware that given the right circumstances, "advanced [data mining] tools" will find evidence of Space Invaders code in MySQL and carrot DNA in the human genome - buts thats another story; after all there are only so many ways to implement an insertion sort or a tyrosine kinase.
It all backs up my suspicion that this SCO thing is all pretty dubious stuff.
As an aside: I have a simple technique to see if my kids have been naughty. I ask them what happened a couple of times and if the stories change or differ then I know theyve been up to no good. It never fails.
Messrs McBride and Sontag will therefore go to bed early tonight without a story.
I wish at was Friday, but I dont want to wish my life away. So I wish it was last Friday.
Considering SCO repeats the same FUD and BS over and over again, why can't Slashdotters repeat the same jokes over and over?
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
Why can't we look at it the other way around? Wasnt there any type of accountability in the code as to who wrote what? Why can't we just see what code IS legitamatly free and see what is left? Doesnt Linux keep a roster of the major developers who contributed code to the Linux kernel? I know that if I contributed code to it, I'd want at least my name on the code fragment to say "look what I did".
....move along....nothing to see here....
This is exactly the kind of thing I was afraid of. This could hurt us, they will never approve a fair or no NDA, and this could hurt us and IBM enormously. The issue here is not whether or not there is unix code in linux. The issue is what that means.
SCO says it means "we own everyone else's work, too. So pay up."what it really means is that the code needs to be removed, no matter how preposterosly large SCO says it is. I have read IBM's counterclaim a few times and IBM, as I recall, does not deny that there is unix code in linux. It just says it didn't put any there.
Remember, SCO showed code to a few dozen people under that NDA. They believed that there was, indeed, unix code in linux. HOWEVER, that does not mean what SCO says it means. Just because some code happens to be there does not mean that we are subject to SCOs' illegal whim. They are still screwed for dozens of reasons, whether there is any unix code in there or not.
It does not matter how big the alleged copying is, the only legal thing for SCO to do was to send a message to linus, stating line for line what the code was, ask for it to be removed, and then possibly sue whoever put it there for damages. had they done that, their actions would have been unpopular, but not illegal.
Relax, everything SCO says is going into a file at IBM, to be used as evidence against them in court.
I did NOT learn everything I need to know in kindergarten.
the gods themselves struggle in vain!
SCO Senior Vice President Chris Sontag said there are millions of lines of offending code involved and that it's highly unlikely the matter could be resolved by removing that code.
Bullcrap! The present version of Linux has capabilties that SCO Unix never ever did! It's been discussed to death here (and everywhere else!) and the only doubt that exists is in the minds of SCO executives and the gullible PHB's that they have managed to snow. There cannot be millions of lines of code stolen from SCO in Linux.
There must be a way to legally force an end to this foolishness! and to do it long before the 2005 court date that has been set for the contract violation suit brought against IBM. Damnit, they have expanded the claims far beyond any contract violation; why the hell can't they be forced legally to "put up or shut up!"?
Press responding to SCO allegations: "Mr. McBride, exactly how many lines of linux kernel code did you say belong to SCO Unix?"
Reporters questioning Sen. John Iselin in "The Manchurian Candidate" (Iselin is a thinly veiled McCarthy for those who haven't seen the movie): "Senator Iselin, exactly how many U.S. Senators did you say belong to the communist party?"
It's laughable, but apparently this old PR trick still works. Let's please keep the focus on the existence / nonexistence of IP infringements in linux rather than backing up SCO's baseless claims by discussing the quantity of IP infringements.
So their logic is.
Distribute GPL software.
Prove the GPL is invalid because copyright law does not allow you to let others make copies.
Continue to distribute GPL software since copyright law no longer applies when a license is ruled invalid.
This does not seem like a strong strategy.
I think a good strategy to fight this would be for the Samba team to get an injunction on their new products pending SCOs acceptance of the GPL.
They then have 2 choices, ditch Samba, agree to the GPL, or fight against willfull copyright violation.
The way the logic probably goes is... smp.h has their code in it, smp.h is included in file fred.c so it can use things like spin locks etc. So basically Sco is counting the lines from every file than might just #include something and you just wait for header files that also #include ;-)
Please Not I do not believe SCOs claims just showing how they could up the figures without an outright lie.
James
I can't believe they're even seriously trying any more, what with this and their blatant misreading of copyright law claiming that licenses allowing multiple copies to be made are invalid.
The problem is this: there is no downside for SCO... they can say and do anything without fear - and there's the very remote chance that they might win something. It's like buying lottery tickets.
There needs to be a downside for crap like this - once it's proven to be a complete fabrication. Imprision the CEO for his company's wilfull purjury... seize their assets... stop all business functions. Basically - a lethal injection for the company.
You can bet shareholders will have something to say about overly litigious companies then!
BlackNova Traders
Nah, it seems SCO believes anything licensed currently under the GPL is basically up for grabs. Someone needs to step on them. Hard.
Or due to the space characters slashdot added to the text-only URL.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Clearly, they are very, very dumb. GPL invalid 'cause copyright law forbids multiple copies? (et bloody cetera, ad freaking infinitum) They're either barking mad or immensely, fiendishly, deviously clever, and the evidence leans heavily toward barking mad... The fortunate part in all this is that, as SCO's claims get ever wilder, soon even the PHBs will recognize that they're a rebel without a case.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
This is a very bad idea. First because it's unecessary, and second because the result would be a license which is NOT compatible with the GPL and not even a Free Software license. Such discriminatory licensing would be cutting off your foot to spite your face, or some such homily.
Under the existing terms of the GPL it seems that SCO has very likely already disallowed itself from using any GPL code by its actions anyway. It's just a matter of someone providing enough support that the SAMBA team and others feel confident they can move against them without incurring legal fees they can't afford to pay.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The bottom line is that they may be able to take direct action: change the license to "GPL-SCO." That's a stock GPL license with an extra clause superceding all others and explicitly prohibiting the use of the software on SCO systems, on any system owned by SCO regardless of the OS used, or distribution in any form by SCO or its successors.
That extra clause would make the "GPL-SCO" license incompatible with the GPL. So, to change it in the first place, they'd have to round up every copyright holder on (which probably means every author of) GPLed code and get them all to volunteer to change their license.
And even if they did, it probably wouldn't matter: SCO could just take the last GPL'ed version of Samba and work from there. That's kind of the point of the GPL: to ensure that you still have your free software even if the authors go crazy, get bought out, or get all 'political' on you.
Another poster did have a point, though: SCO's arguments about the GPL being "invalid" could be interpreted as a public statement that they do not agree to the GPL, in which case their redistribution of any GPLed code is just copyright violation. However, I personally wouldn't want to try to sue them unless they were actually breaking the terms of the GPL on my software (which so far they're only doing to the Linux kernel authors) not just babbling about their perceived right to do so.
I don't follow this reasoning. There's no reason to hold back identifying the infringing code, aside from hiding the fact they have nothing, or that the code that was "duplicated" actually made its way into the kernel through legal channels (i.e. SCO employees contributing the code).
SCO's management has in the past claimed that "telling you what is infringing will mean that people will take the code out of the kernel." This lays bare SCO's purpose... money. They hope to perpetually reap the benefits of claiming infringement, rather than letting the community clean up any leakage of propretary IP into Linux. Furthermore they are bullshitting that it would affect their case. All they would have to do is bring in a Red Hat CD with the source code for the infringing kernel, and show the offending code. The fact that the current kernel wouldn't have the infringing code is irrelevant to SCO's suit. They can still claim that the past infringement damaged their IP and hurt their business.
Even if they did change the license to something like this to prevent SCO from using it, they'd still have the problem of having released the old code under a license that DOES allow SCO to use it and will continue to allow SCO to develop on it and enhance it (providing that the software remains under the GPL of course)