Slashdot Mirror
SCO's Open Letter to Open Source Community
joefish_only_1 writes "SCO CEO has posted an open letter to the open source community. There's some things Mr McBride mentions that I hadn't heard of yet, like an admission by Bruce Perens that "UNIX System V code is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn't be there."" A slashdot reader posted a comment recently
that breaks it down quite well.
Well, after RTFA, it has everything to do with the SGI crap which has since been removed for being a kludge. This is the code snippet which we are aware of anyways.
From the Article: The second development was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn't be there. Mr Perens stated that there is "an error in the Linux developer's process" which allowed Unix System V code that "didn't belong in Linux" to end up in the Linux kernel (source: ComputerWire, August 25, 2003). Mr Perens continued with a string of arguments to justify the "error in the Linux developer's process." However, nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics stripped copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code that was licensed to Silicon Graphics under strict conditions of use, and then contributed that source code to Linux as though it was clean code owned and controlled by SGI. This is a clear violation of SGI's contract and copyright obligations to SCO. We are currently working to try and resolve these issues with SGI.
So much to comment on... so little time. Well, the first thing that I see that stands out is this quote by McBride:
The second development was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn't be there. Mr Perens stated that there is "an error in the Linux developer's process" which allowed Unix System V code that "didn't belong in Linux" to end up in the Linux kernel (source: ComputerWire, August 25, 2003).
Here is the original quote from the referenced ComputerWire article:
The other SCO code snippet Perens walks through had to do with memory allocation functions in Unix System V and Linux. He says there was, in fact, "an error in the Linux developer's process," specifically a programmer at SGI, and he says while the Linux community had the legal right to this code, it didn't belong in Linux and was therefore removed.
Talk about out of context! The assertion that the code is owned by SCO is made only by Mr. McBride, who neglected to mention that it has already been found and removed.
The subpoena sets September 10th as the date for a deposition, at Snell & Wilmer's law offices in Salt Lake City, and instructs that these are the documents Canopy Group's representative, whoever they choose to get deposed on behalf of Canopy, must produce on that date:
1. All documents concerning this lawsuit, plaintiff's claims or IBM's defenses or counterclaims.
2. All documents concerning any communications regarding this lawsuit, plaintiff's claims or IBM's defenses or counterclaims.
3. All documents concerning plaintiff's rights relating to UNIX or Linux.
4. All documents concerning any strategy, plan, effort, or action (actual or contemplated) to use or enforce (or to threaten to use or enforce) rights to UNIX or Linux.
5. All documents concerning any open-source license, including the GNU General Public License.
6. All documents concerning any lawsuit other than this lawsuit (actual or contemplated) involving plaintiff and relating to UNIX or Linux.
7. All documents concerning any agreement, understanding or communication with Microsoft, Sun, Computer Associates, Tarantella, AT&T, USL, HP or Novell, relating to UNIX or Linux.
8. All documents concerning plaintiff's efforts to license UNIX or Linux.
9. All documents concerning plaintiff's alleged evidence of UNIX in Linux.
10. All documents concerning plaintiff's alleged evidence of misconduct or breaches of duty by IBM.
11. All documents concerning plaintiff's UNIX or Linux business.
12. Documents sufficient to show the organizational structure or personnel of The Canopy Group.
13. All documents relating to the ownership of plaintiff.
14. All documents relating to purchases or sales of plaintiff's stock since January 1, 2003.
15. All documents in the possession, custody, or control of Ralph Yarrow, Jan Newman, Darcy Mott, Raymond J. Noorda, Lewena Noorda, Joyce Wiley, Mark Cusick, or Dan L. Baker relating to UNIX, Linux, or this lawsuit.
16. All documents provided to plaintiff by The Canopy Group or provided to The Canopy Group by plaintiff relating to UNIX, Linux, or this lawsuit.
17. All documents concerning the decision to commence or pursue this lawsuit or other lawsuits relating to plaintiff's alleged rights relating to UNIX or Linux.
18. All documents concerning the decision to suspend distribution of plaintiff's Linux products or code.
19. All documents concerning any analysis of any IBM conduct related to Unix or Linux.
20. All documents concerning any UNIX source code, derivative works, modification. or methods contributed to Linux or to the open source community by AT&T, USL, Novell, Tarantella, or plaintiff.
21. All documents concerning the relationship between plaintiff and The Canopy Group.
22. All documents concerning any statements, declaration, affidavit, analysis, assessment, or opinion rrelating to plaintiff's rights to UNIX or Linux.
23. All documents concerning any statement, affidavit, declaration, analysis, assessment, or opinion relating to this litigation.
24. All documents concerning the nature, calculation, and basis of any damages or injuries plaintiff claims in this matter.
"... was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn't be there"
There is absolutely no way for SCO to spin this. This is a simple lie. Not a twist on a truth, not a half-truth, not something that they could ever show even the most tenuous evidence for. It's a straight lie.
It'll be interesting to see how Darl gets out of that one when the SEC knock on his door.
Does SCO check to ensure the code their programmers submit is legal? Or do they just accept that it is?
This debate about Open Source software is healthy and beneficial. It offers long-term benefits to the industry by addressing a new business model in advance of wide-scale adoption by customers. But in the last week of August two developments occurred that adversely affect the long-term credibility of the Open Source community, with the general public and with customers.
The first development followed another series of Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on SCO, which took place two weeks ago. These were the second and third such attacks in four months and have prevented Web users from accessing our web site and doing business with SCO. There is no question about the affiliation of the attacker - Open Source leader Eric Raymond was quoted as saying that he was contacted by the perpetrator and that "he's one of us." To Mr Raymond's partial credit, he asked the attacker to stop. However, he has yet to disclose the identity of the perpetrator so that justice can be done.
No one can tolerate DDoS attacks and other kinds of attacks in this Information Age economy that relies so heavily on the Internet. Mr Raymond and the entire Open Source community need to aggressively help the industry police these types of crimes. If they fail to do so it casts a shadow over the entire Open Source movement and raises questions about whether Open Source is ready to take a central role in business computing. We cannot have a situation in which companies fear they may be next to suffer computer attacks if they take a business or legal position that angers the Open Source community. Until these illegal attacks are brought under control, enterprise customers and mainstream society will become increasingly alienated from anyone associated with this type of behavior.
The second development was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn't be there. Mr Perens stated that there is "an error in the Linux developer's process" which allowed Unix System V code that "didn't belong in Linux" to end up in the Linux kernel (source: ComputerWire, August 25, 2003). Mr Perens continued with a string of arguments to justify the "error in the Linux developer's process." However, nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics stripped copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code that was licensed to Silicon Graphics under strict conditions of use, and then contributed that source code to Linux as though it was clean code owned and controlled by SGI. This is a clear violation of SGI's contract and copyright obligations to SCO. We are currently working to try and resolve these issues with SGI.
This improper contribution of Unix code by SGI into Linux is one small example that reveals fundamental structural flaws in the Linux development process. In fact, this issue goes to the very heart of whether Open Source can be trusted as a development model for enterprise computing software. The intellectual property roots of Linux are obviously flawed at a systemic level under the current model. To date, we claim that more than one million lines of Unix System V protected code have been contributed to Linux through this model. The flaws inherent in the Linux process must be openly addressed and fixed.
At a minimum, IP sources should be checked to assure that copyright
Does everything include nothing?
Agreed. But are you arguing that ESR shouldn't inform the proper authorities about the crime he knows has been committed?
He doesn't know who it was, so how is he going to inform any authorities?
The simple answer is here. ESR doesn't know the identity of the DDoSer, having only dealt with a cut-out, only that (s)he is "an experienced Internet engineer". I find it incredibly crass of Darl to intimate that someone of ESR's standing in the community is obstructing the course of justice like that, and wonder if ESR might have some grounds for a libel case.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
The developer at SGI stripped BSD copyright information. The code without the proper copyright information does not belong in the Linux Kernel. The code with the copyright information is fine.
Please note: This has nothing to do with Darth McBride.
Get a free ipod.
You are a liar, a fraud, and a thief.
You are a liar (if in nothing else) in deliberately misquoting Bruce Perens' analysis of the memory allocation routines which SGI contributed to Linux. Bruce Perens clearly did not say (as you claim he did) that we had allowed '...Unix System V code that "didn't belong in Linux" to end up in the Linux kernel' (my emphasis). He nowhere agreed that this was System V code.
You are a fraud in that you you claim that these routines are your company's property. They are not property, and they are not yours. They aren't yours, they weren't SGI's, they weren't AT&T's. You cannot inherit from others that which they do not own.
Algorithms for allocating memory have been developed over a period of over half a century by software developers studying and improving on one another's code. No implementation of these algorithms exists in isolation; none is fresh hewn from virgin intellectual territory. Improvements are incremental and have largely developed in an open and collegiate environment. Linux may, indeed, have learned some things from UNIX[tm]; but UNIX in its turn got the algorithms from MULTICS, TRIPOS, CPL and others lost even further in the mists of time. You cannot simply stop this process at an arbitrary point and say 'now this is property'. It is not property, it's a commons, a commons tilled and tended by many hands, to bring it to the state it is today.
And so, Sir, lastly, I say you are a thief. You are a thief in that you seek to enclose commons, to deprive the community of the rightful fruits of its labours over many decades, to make property what is not, never was, and never could be property. To steal our work and sell it back to us.
Sincerely
Simon Brooke
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
McBride is technically correct, although misleading. According to Perens (via the second link in the slashdot blurb) "It is included in code copyrighed by AT&T and released as Open Source under the BSD license by Caldera, the company that now calls itself SCO."
To sum up, the code in question is owned by SCO, but using said code in Linux is permissable under the license terms by which the code was released. The "crime" here was that the SGI developer stripped the copyright notice.
Remember that under virtually all open source license agreements, the code continues to be owned by the copyright holder, but a nearly unlimited license to use, distribute, and create derivative works is granted to the public.
Given the date and recent warnings, it could be that this tremendous cloud of FUD and BS eminating from SCO is the dreaded sabotage some have been expecting.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
No, "unreasonable" is the correct word, however you're right in that the meaning of the sentence would be clearer if the phrase "unreasonable licensing obligations" were changed to "unreasonable proprietary licensing obligations".
Feel free to make this change if you forward/post it anywhere else.
That doesn't change the fact what we have here is the logical fallacy of "Dicto simpliciter".
Even if we were talking about the damn marine corps, simply because one individual chooses to act in discordance with the group's stated goals doesn't at all reflect on the group.
Any attempt at making that claim is NOT an argument, but perhaps an explanation...
I don't read or respond to AC posts
The most controversial issue in the information technology industry today is the ongoing battle over software copyrights and intellectual property. This battle is being fought largely between vendors who create and sell proprietary software, and the Open Source community. My company, the SCO Group, became a focus of this controversy when we filed a lawsuit against IBM alleging that SCO's proprietary Unix code has been illegally copied into the free Linux operating system. In doing this we angered some in the Open Source community by pointing out obvious intellectual property problems that exist in the current Linux software development model.
This debate about Open Source software is healthy and beneficial. It offers long-term benefits to the industry by addressing a new business model in advance of wide-scale adoption by customers. But in the last week of August two developments occurred that adversely affect the long-term credibility of the Open Source community, with the general public and with customers.
The first development followed another series of Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on SCO, which took place two weeks ago. These were the second and third such attacks in four months and have prevented Web users from accessing our web site and doing business with SCO. There is no question about the affiliation of the attacker - Open Source leader Eric Raymond was quoted as saying that he was contacted by the perpetrator and that "he's one of us." To Mr Raymond's partial credit, he asked the attacker to stop. However, he has yet to disclose the identity of the perpetrator so that justice can be done.
No one can tolerate DDoS attacks and other kinds of attacks in this Information Age economy that relies so heavily on the Internet. Mr Raymond and the entire Open Source community need to aggressively help the industry police these types of crimes. If they fail to do so it casts a shadow over the entire Open Source movement and raises questions about whether Open Source is ready to take a central role in business computing. We cannot have a situation in which companies fear they may be next to suffer computer attacks if they take a business or legal position that angers the Open Source community. Until these illegal attacks are brought under control, enterprise customers and mainstream society will become increasingly alienated from anyone associated with this type of behavior.
The second development was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn't be there. Mr Perens stated that there is "an error in the Linux developer's process" which allowed Unix System V code that "didn't belong in Linux" to end up in the Linux kernel (source: ComputerWire, August 25, 2003). Mr Perens continued with a string of arguments to justify the "error in the Linux developer's process." However, nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics stripped copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code that was licensed to Silicon Graphics under strict conditions of use, and then contributed that source code to Linux as though it was clean code owned and controlled by SGI. This is a clear violation of SGI's contract and copyright obligations to SCO. We are currently working to try and resolve these issues with SGI.
This improper contribution of Unix code by SGI into Linux is one small example that reveals fundamental structural flaws in the Linux development process. In fact, this issue goes to the very heart of whether Open Source can be trusted as a development model for enterprise computing software. The intellectual property roots of Linux are obviously flawed at a systemic level under the current model. To date, we claim that more than one million lines of Unix System V protected code have been contributed to Linux through this model. The flaws inherent in the Linux process must be openly addressed and fixed.
At a minimum, IP sources should be checked to assure that copyri
Regarding where the code came from, the full quote from Mr. Perens' essay is:
"The AT&T code that was subject of this lawsuit survives into SCO's current system, and the version that was included in Linux seems to be from System V. That version differs from the public domain version by 2 lines - both concerned with diagnostics rather than working code. That trivial a difference doesn't appear to be copyrightable."
The question, therefore, is whether a 2-line change the 32V code that went into the public domain is a sufficient change to make the revised code copyrightable.
It's far from clear in my mind how this might play out. On the one hand, I have no idea where you would put a dividing line that would delineate what changes to public domain material would allow the revised work to be copyrighted. On the other hand, if you replace this with a written-language equivalent (e.g., adding two sentences to one or more paragraphs of prose), there would certainly be a plagarism complaint -- which in this case, suggests that two lines might not be sufficient to create a new work.
So, Mr. Perens' "admission" that the code came from SysV does not mean that SCO's claim vis a vis this code is accurate.
The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development
I've yet to see a good rebutal of Darls Open Letter, but I suspect ESR or Bruce is typing one up as we speak..
The previous SCO story included this comment which, I believe, is exactly what you're looking for.
It addresses the McBride letter point by point, and is well written.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Depends on the publication. The Village Voice, for one example, has never had any qualms about printing letters to the editor with the word "fuck" in it. As for business correspondence, yes, you're right. But this isn't business correspondence, it's a *heartfelt* response to Mr. McBride's open letter. The words "complete" and "fucking" as adjectivial modifications to the noun "idiot" were the strongest way to drive the point home.
And it was *heartfelt*.
"What comes of litigation? Poverty and degradation to any community that will encourage it. Will it build cities, open farms, build railroads, erect telegraph lines and improve a country? It will not; but it will bring any community to ruin." -Brigham Young, JD 11:259.
All the tech-aware mormons I know are just as outraged about the SCOurge of McBride and his cronies as you are.
Analysis of SCO's Las Vegas Slide Show, http://perens.com/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html
... sharing none of the original source code, but carefully following the documentation of the Lab's product."
SCO's legal theory fails, because they ignore the fact that if a work doesn't contain some portion of SCO's copyrighted code, it is not a derived work.
the code regarding the supposed "obfuscated copying" was actually "a clean-room re-implementation
since bruce is active on slashdot (uid 3872),
it's only a matter of time before he responds to these allegations more directly,
both here and to mcbride.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
These slides have several C syntax errors and would never compile. So, they don't quite represent any source code in Linux. But we've found the code they refer to. It is included in code copyrighed by AT&T and released as Open Source under the BSD license by Caldera, the company that now calls itself SCO. The Linux developers have a legal right to make use of the code under that license. No violation of SCO's copyright or trade secrets is taking place.
This is why partial quotes are dangerous. You get to see one line but not the part that came before it, so that makes it look completely different. Please everyone, before you post your opinion on one of these quotes, read the Original Post referred to, or better yet the original article. If you're going to include a quote, make sure it includes the entirity of the idea or else people will get confused.Letter of response posted from Groklaw:
.
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/
-----
"D. Jeff Dionne commented on 8 September 2003:
"1. What a member of a community does is the responsibility of that individual. The actions of one person cannot be used to stigmatize a group (or any others at all). . .
"2. There is considerable evidence that there was in fact no DOS of SCO's machines. If this proves to be the case, SCO will have to be held accountable for it's allegations.
"3. SGI is on record that it's legal team went through the xfs sources to approve the release. The code in question is clean according to this audit... if it is not then that is a mistake. In any case, it was corrected, and the (appropriate, responsible) proceedures followed to insure that intellectual property of others was protected is a matter of public record. Stated another way, it can be clearly shown that the accepted industry process (code audit) was carried out and that it was carred out to respect the rights and property of others.
"4. Making allegations of not respecting intellectual property comes (at least) close to defamation. In light of 3, and knowing that SCO was a party (as all enterprise linux vendors were) to the very public work SGI did to contribute xfs to Linux, one has to hold SCO accountable for knowingly making such false and damaging statements.
"5. If there is code (for instance) in the SMP support which is SCO's property, that code is limited to the code itself. There is no legal theory that can be presented that will stand scrutiny that will allow you to claim 1m lines of code derived from it. Put another way, _calling_ a function cannot make the work that calls it a derived work in the general case or all programs would be a derived work of the platform they run on.
"6. Open Source and Free Software are not business models. They [are a] process and philosophy which is used to generate software for the benefit of everyone. Stated another way, they are designed to make the benefit of the development effort accrue to the public.
"7. There is no such thing as 'Free Open Source' The terms 'Free Software' and 'Open Source' are valid terms, however they are not interchangeable.
"8. SCO spent many years as a member of the Open Source community. It knows that the community hold property and the law in high regard and respects those laws. SCO also knows that the GPL relies on copyright. SCO knows this because lawers for another Canopy company examined the foundations of the GPL in depth and also offered GPL indemnity. This is known to Blake Stowell, who was involved in that effort.
"9. If the Open Source movement is based on anti-establisment principals, SCO must also be based on them because it was one of the first companies to be an 'Open Source' company. It contributed funding and engineering to the development of, and is partly responsible for, the state of the Open Source movement today.
"What SCO is doing is illegal. In the case of this letter, you have come very close to defaming myself and other Linux developers. Seek legal advice before posting such things, we will hold you accountable."
Well, that's just meaninless obfuscation by Perens, the open source license used by Caldera clearly states that copyright and license notices must be kept, so whoever copied this code broke the license.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
In the unlikely event that the GPL is found to be invalid, as Darl has claimed, SCO will be in even worse shape than they are now. The GPL is the only thing that has allowed SCO to distribute the Linux kernel at all; if the GPL is invalid, SCO is guilty of tens or hundreds of thousands of counts of copyright violation themselves. At up to $150K damages per count, they could have to pay damages comparable to what they've asked from IBM.
As much I enjoy the humourous and fascinating art of picking apart SCO's press releases here, everyone again seems to forget one thing: Darl and his gang doesn't care about Open Source. They don't care about Linux. They don't care about IBM or Redhat. They don't even care about their own crappy product line. They know that their case has no merit and that SCO will end up bankrupt. The fact is that the sole purpose of anything that comes out of SCO is to boost their stock price, and this strategy continues to work wonders. It's over $18 now. This is all they care about. I just hope that when it is all over, they're all in jail.
Raymond and Perens respond to McBride's open letter