Slashdot Mirror
SGI's Letter to the Linux Community
_Upsilon_ writes "SGI has released a letter to the Linux community in response to SCO's recent threat to revoke the UNIX licence for Irix. The letter mentions that they inadvertently did submit some System V code into the Linux kernel, that has since been removed (and some more in the process of being removed). The article points out that the code fragments in question had already been released into the public domain as well."
October 1, 2003
To the Linux Community:
As one of many contributors to the Open Source movement and to Linux,
SGI takes the subject of intellectual property rights seriously. Our
contributions are a valuable expression of ideas which contribute to
the intellectual richness of Linux.
Over the past four years, SGI has released over a million lines of code
under an open source license. Throughout, we have carried out a
rigorous internal process to ensure that all software contributed by
SGI represents code we are legally entitled to release as open source.
When a question was raised by the community earlier in the summer about
the ate_utils.c routine, we took immediate action to address it. We
quickly and carefully re-reviewed our contributions to open source, and
found brief fragments of code matching System V code in three generic
routines (ate_utils.c, the atoi function and systeminfo.h header file),
all within the I/O infrastructure support for SGI's platform. The three
code fragments had been inadvertently included and in fact were
redundant from the start. We found better replacements providing the
same functionality already available in the Linux kernel. All
together, these three small code fragments comprised no more than 200
lines out of the more than one million lines of our overall
contributions to Linux. Notably, it appears that most or all of the
System V code fragments we found had previously been placed in the
public domain, meaning it is very doubtful that the SCO Group has any
proprietary claim to these code fragments in any case.
As a precaution, we promptly removed the code fragments from SGIs Linux
website and distributed customer patches, and released patches to the
2.4 and 2.5 kernels on June 30 and July 3 to replace these routines and
make other fixes to the SGI infrastructure code that were already in
progress at SGI. Our changes showed up in the 2.5 kernel within a few
weeks of our submission, and the 2.4 changes were available in the
production version of the 2.4 kernel as of August 25 when the 2.4.22
kernel was released. Thus, the code in question has been completely
removed.
Following this occurrence, we continued our investigation to determine
whether any other code in the Linux kernel was even conceivably
implicated. As a result of that exhaustive investigation, SGI has
discovered a few additional code segments (similar in nature to the
segments referred to above and trivial in amount) that may arguably be
related to UNIX code. We are in the process of removing and replacing
these segments.
SCO's references to XFS are completely misplaced. XFS is an innovative
SGI- created work. It is not a derivative work of System V in any
sense, and SGI has full rights to license it to whomever we choose and
to contribute it to open source. It may be that SCO is taking the
position that merely because XFS is also distributed along with IRIX it
is somehow subject to the System V license. But if so, this is an
absurd position, with no basis either in the license or in common
sense. In fact, our UNIX license clearly provides that SGI retains
ownership and all rights as to all code that was not part of AT&Ts UNIX
System V.
I hope this answers some of the questions that you and the Linux
community might have. We continue to release new Linux work, and are
very excited about the growth and acceptance of Linux. We are
continuing full speed to do new work and release new Linux products.
We take our responsibility to the open source community seriously and
are confident that we have an effective process to verify the quality
and integrity of our contributions to Linux.
Rich Altmaier
VP of Software, SGI
richa@sgi.com
You mean that McBride's rants may actually have a bit of substance behind them? OK, most of the code is gone now, and what code was there was Public Domin anyway, but McBride whining about the simple fact that the code was there now has some merit to it?
oh, man.
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
Newsforge
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
This is one of the most levelheaded, rational-sounding responses to SCO that I've seen in a long time. I hope they sent this to their customers. If it goes just to slashdot and associated sites it's sort of just preaching to the choir :)
"Notably, it appears that most or all of the System V code fragments we found had previously been placed in the public domain, meaning it is very doubtful that the SCO Group has any proprietary claim to these code fragments in any case."
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
On the other hand, this also confirms that SCO is spouting non-sense and has no legal basis for its suits, since:
I predict SCO is therefore going to be squashed by IBM, SGI, Red Hat etc. Good riddance.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
I don't see anything new here.
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
SCO is quick with their reply to SGI.
Either way, the damage to Linux has been done. Whether SCO is totally wrong in their accusations, which this letter from SGI will assist, Linux and Open Source software will look that little bit less appetising to any corporation. SCO will certainly tarnish Open Source, but hopefully SGI will soften the blow with this open letter. Good Work SGI!
Have now said that "there are currently no plans to sue SGI".
I suspect they'll "terminate" SCO's SysV license with as much success as they had with IBM. I.e. their stock price will bump up and that's about it.
confirm anything!
They said that ARGUABLY there was snippets that could be construde as Unixware V code, and they replaced it just in case.
This shows the minor things that SCO from which they are trying to gain. However, how small of "a copy" can be included before that is considering stealing?
For example, if I "borrow" one line from a song in my song... is that stealing?
If I borrow one line from another piece of literature in my "unique" work, is that stealing?
Are they admitting to the borrowing of a small amount of code here?
Everybody borrows; genius steals.
Davak
If SCO goes after SGI and continues to go after their own customers, they will eventually obliterate their own customer base. This is just more proof of Mr. McBride's roadmap for SCO (which mysteriously resembles a downward spiral).
I'm just waiting for the SEC to wake up and realize that all of this was done so that the execs @ SCO could line their pockets.
SCO: You copied our Intellectual Property!!
[Company X]: No we didn't... that code's from the BSD codebase.
SCO: Oh... ok... well we're going to sue you anyways and revoke your UNIX license.
[Company X]: Whatever... go away or I'll replace you with a small shell script.
-- Stu
/. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
SCO CEO Darl McBride remained true to form when he responded to the SGI letter, "IRIX infringes upon our IP, this means that motion pictures featuring graphics rendered on SGI is a derivative work of our UNIX SysV code. We are not just talking a couple in frames, we are talking entire movies here".
The film at 11 is now the intellectual property of the SCO group.
You play Baldur's Gate too much.
"As a result of that exhaustive investigation, SGI has discovered a few additional code segments (similar in nature to the segments referred to above and trivial in amount) that may arguably be related to UNIX code. We are in the process of removing and replacing these segments."
Isn't SCO costing SGI an awful lot of time and effort (i.e. money) to scour code in order to find the "iunfringing code" that supposedly SCO knows about and won't release? I'd think that SGI could have a case to sue SCO for refusing to identify the "infringing" code based on SGI having to spend money attempting to address SCO's claims without SCO helping? I'm pretty sure that the law requires that if you believe someone is infringing on your copyrights that you identify the infringements so that they can stop. Am I missing something, or is SCO just building a case against itself by refusing to allow people to remove the infringing code?
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Unlike Big Blue, SGI might not be well placed to fight a drawn-out legal battle with SCO. Revenue is declining, cashflow is negative, and the share price is circling the toilet bowl. And since the IBM/SCO case doesn't look like it will be resolved soon, you have to wonder how much resistance SGI can put up...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Isn't there only so many ways you can program something to do the same thing? I mean think about it. Eventually somebody is bound to write the same code somebody else has. All this arguing is a waste of time IMHO. Maybe I'll patent my "Hello World" software and make millions. Sheesh! Stop the arguing and go type code something new.
SGI is not powerful enough to fight SCO at this point. They will probably perish. We can only count on IBM to make SCO perish.
SCO isn't a very large company, heck, SGI's Minneapolis/Egan office is larger than all of SCO.
SGI may have laid off a lot of people in recent years, but if you recall your American Business 101, the middle managers and lawyers are also the last to go.
I hate karma whoring ACs...
This totally scuppers SCO's argument that Linux contributors are out of control and stealing their stuff.
Legally SGI is doing the right thing. They perform due dilligence and if anything slips through the cracks they remedy it. It illustrates just how flimsy SCO's copyright case is a pointer to what may actually ultimately happen when this matter is resolved.
Prepare for more crazy ramblings from SCO in the immediate future. They will undoubtedly issue a press release claiming this is an admission of wrongdoing by SGI and play up the aspect of the letter that suggest missappropriated code, but of course this is not the message to be taken from the SGI letter.
Having both codes, this was the first open explanation about code exuality in System V and Linux. And for the first time someone openly started to tell which small parts that are. And even talking about fixes.
Thanks, this might prove that SCO is nothing more but greedy business graduated troll
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Couldn't be clearer, obviously not written by a lawyer! basically it said ' Go forth and multiply SCO,we made a small mistake and corrected it ages ago' Nice to hear something clear and unambiguous for a change!
If you'll note, the example of infringing code given at the SCO stockholders meeting earlier this year was an SGI one. Upon being faced with the origin and the point it was public domain SCO backpedaled and announced it was not an example of infringing code, just an example of "code". Retreating from that statement to say yes, in fact it was infringing, would be odd and probably even their followers would see it that way.
but McBride whining about the simple fact that the code was there now has some merit to it"
The fact the code was there gives him no merit at all. What I see here is the linux community plus SGI being absolutely vehement in removing copyright violations from linux the instant that it's even hinted they might be there. This seems to place SCO wholly at fault since it is thus their fault the infringing code continues to be in linux, by virtue of the fact they refuse to tell anyone what that infringing code is. The legal doctrine of due dilligence means a court will likely see it the same way.
Regular copyright permits fair use within limits, need to attribute the original copywrite holder, etc. One use of this is to avoid restating something when it already has been stated well. Could fair use be applied to code fragments as well? (I.E. 200 lines of header spec)
Notice how SCO didn't trumpet SGI's violations to the press. It took a more circuituous route of notifying SGI privately, and letting SGI spread the news themselves. Though there was much speculation, nothing was official until SGI's 10K. My guess is that SCO is starting to learn that trumpeting litigous claims to the press is not the way to proceed. I guess they are tired of defending against Landham (sp?) Act violations.
(I originally posted this to finance yahoo message board, but it is appropriate here.)
"found brief fragments of code matching System V code in three generic routines (ate_utils.c, the atoi function " they're complaining about copied atoi code?!?!?! exactly how many variations of converting ascii to integers could there be? And why would anyone care about something so simple? Unless it was a FUD screen...
And they've given the DiDiots of the world a way to claim SCO was correct.
And we wonder why Netcraft confirms SGI is dieing...
Let's see now; SCO claims that they inadvertantly released code under the GPL so they cannot be held accountable.
SGI claims they inadvertantly released UNIX code into Linux, but SCO says they are accountable; ie., lawsuit.
Is something wrong with this scene?
while true; do wget -O /dev/null http://www.sco.com/ ; done
[n] (law) a formal notice filed with a court or officer to suspend a proceeding until filer is given a hearing; "a caveat filed against the probate of a will" :)
[n] a warning against certain acts; "a caveat against unfair practices"
Which caveat does SGI want?
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
They fess'd up to it...gotta admire a company that can take it on the chin. For that reason alone, I think I'm going to get a new Octane. (g)
Not very well paraphrased... The letter was from SGI, not SCO. A more accurate paraphrasing: Dear SCO, Please go suck and egg. Thank you, and have a nice day. SGI. PS: We sent this to the Linux Community since you seem to have blocked our emails. I'm sure you'll get it either way.
At the same time, it's hard for SCO to claim damages in this case as the amount was not only small, but redundant, and easily replaced. If SCO saw one cent of loss from those 200 lines, I'll be damned. They more likely see loss from idiotic legal strategies build upon half-truths and blatent disregard for their own customer base. (RIAA, anyone?)
#define DRM chmod 000
So?
SGI may have admitted putting SYSV code into the Linux codebase. As soon as they discovered their transgression, they fixed it. That shows that their transgression was not intentional, and that they respected SCO's copyrights. SCO has not shown the same honesty of intention.
A Firesign Theater reference for the geezers among us. Thanks!
- - - If the sun is a star, why can't I see it at night?
However, that may just be wishful thinking on their part.
No, it isn't. Read Eric Raymond's analysis of the code in question, it is very clear that the code has been released at some point under a license that would permit it's use.
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
Mistakes happen. Its nice to see someone like SGI step up and admit what really happened and actually take serious steps to correct the problem.
I just hope they leave an impression on other proprietary based companies looking to be apart of the community.
Notably, it appears that most or all of the
System V code fragments we found had previously been placed in the
public domain
Even this is too much for the PR department to mangle. But legally, SGI probably needed to cover their backs with the words "appears" and "most"
As I followed this, I thought there was always the undercurrent of 'There may be code that looks extremely similar that has ancestors in BSD and has been proven in court to be not part of the System V code and public domain'. Yes, Linux was written from scratch or whatever, but it was possible that in an effort to add some functionality someone refered to a book rather than reinvent the wheel.
The mere fact that code is the same between two sources is useless without being able to prove if either was original. As has been shown repeatedly, either SCO doesn't know or thought no one else would remember about the whole AT&T vs. BSD deally.
And in any case, SGI has already proven how easy it would have been to address the issue if SCO had identified any code they actually had rights to - yet another fact that would hurt SCO in a copyright lawsuit.
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.
How about, "And so using God's bosy as ballast..." that's my favorite.
That some linux-related companies would drop libel/slander lawsuits on SCO and demand temporary injunctions. Yeah, there's a risk some of what SCO said is right, but even if there is accidental SysV code somewhere in Linux there are still any number of statements SCO has made that are clearly slanderous-- for example, SCO has a few times stated that the linux community was given the chance to remove the code yet didn't. (The community has had no such chance.) Dropping a few slander suits on SCO, even if the chances of winning aren't 100%, would take some huge chunks out of their sails.
Actually, that may or may not be such a good idea, as it would unnecessarily tie good linux companies up in litigation and might be sinking to SCO's level; but what I REALLY wish is that someone would start taking out some subpeona's on SCO. Redhat's sued SCO but that seems like it will take years to hit court. Is there any way that Redhat could sue the hypothetical person who put SysV code into linux and presented it as their own-- "John Doe", and subpeona from SCO all information relating to evidence SysV code was leaked into linux so they can find out who "John Doe" is? Is there any way that that might get into court and get a result quicker than waiting for the Redhat vs SCO case to wind its way into court?
Either way, one would think a slander case could get into court quicker because it regards an ongoing abuse..? Can you get injunctions over slander? Does anyone know?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
They also said repeatedly that they will "strongly defend their IP".
But they also said they wouldn't sue IBM.
Oh, dear.. it seems that either way they'll be contradicting themselves.
I don't think anyone can predict just what crazy move SCO is going to make next.
I still do not see how this gives SCO any leverage. If someone is complaining about another using their IP, but they do not reveal the infringing code so that they can extort users, how is this even legal?
When this goes to trial I would think that judge would simply ask why Linux has not removed any code SCO is refering to. When the defendants say "because SCO will not tell us what is infringing" wouldn't this raise big red flags about SCOs intentions with the judge?
Yes it is material. This is a civil case, not a criminal. In civil cases, attempting to right a wrong is important. If SCO is succeeds, it will affect any penalties levied against SGI. Probably diminishing them significantly.
- No SYSV code has been misappropriated into Linux and SCO gets nothing, or
- Some code has been misappropriated into Linux and SCO gets full damages.
The real truth is likely between these two, and much closer to (1). The factors that limit damages SCO might be able to collect from SGI include:- The amount of copied code was small,
- The code copied was not unique or vital--it had been implemented elsewhere and thus cannot be worth much more than the alternative implementations,
- The infringement was not willful, and
- That the code even infringes is not obvious. The actual code has been available to many parties in various stages of openness.
It's possible that there is infringement but that SCO is entitled to so little compensation that they effectively get nothing.How this does help SCO is by allowing them to demonstrate that their misrepresentation of rights was not willful. It will be more difficult for IBM and RHAT to collect damages from SCO if SCO's allegations had any base, as trivial and insignificant as it was.
What exactly did SCO do wrong? I mean, if the code belongs to them, what is so bad about them wanting to be paid for it?
And: there will still be Windows XP, which basically is as free as any Linux.
If the reasoning behind the license cancellation were valid, then SCO would have to sue SGI for selling IRIX to protect the rights that are in question. Not doing so would seem to indicate that SCO was abandoning their purported rights.
You can sample small sections of other music for use in your own track, but not whole parts of the music (for instance not the whole bass line).
Not sure how that applies to code mind. Can you claim to be "quoting code" ?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Many Linux bigots have criticized the involvment of American companies in the development of Linux because, according to the bigots, the companies will end up in controlling the development of Linux. However, a benefit of involving American companies is that they ensure that any new Linux code will be free of copyright infringement. You can be sure that IBM, SGI, and a host of other American companies ensure that they employees (under threat of employment termination) will not submit code that represents theft of intellectual property.
The same cannot be said of lone programmers working on their own. There really is no way for Linus, all by himself, to verify that each submitted piece of Linux code neither violates copyrights nor represents theft of intellectual property. This issue is particularly worrisome in the case of lone programmers or commerical companies based in China (which includes Taiwan province and Hong Kong). The Chinese regularly steal intellectual property or infringe copyrights: e. g. rate of software piracy in China is 90%.
The lawsuit by SCO against IBM certainly has some merit in the sense that Linux code likely contains some infringing code. Still, as the open letter by SGI implies, replacing the infringing code is a simple matter. We could easily get a Ph.D. student in computer science from Carnegie Mellon University to quickly re-write any disputed code in Linux. It really is that simple.
Furthermore, SCO itself distributed all the Linux code under the GNU Public License (GPL). If the GPL is enforceable, then SCO does not have a case. From both angles (enforceability of the GPL and the super ease of re-writing the disputed code),the case by SCO will not destroy Linux. Linux will still prosper and dominate the UNIX market, destroying Sun Microsystems. The only entity that might suffer is IBM; it might cough up a few million dollars in penalties and fire several employees who released the disputed code into Linux distribution.
It is highly material to the case that this was a few lines of inadvertant code among millions and that SGI has removed all it could find. Without further notification of offending lines SCO has no leg to stand on. SGI is doing the right thing legally.
If all this is just about 200 lines of code in reality, then SCO is trying to lay claim to other UNIX licensees works as their own. That sounds more viral in nature than the GPL.
All that's going to reinforce is more companies avoiding SCO for fear of having their own work taken from them.
Secondly, all this revocation of licenses is doing is causing SCO to paint themselves into a corner because there will be no big name companies left to buy their license.
Sure, they are showing and taking steps to preserve their IP, but if no one is able to buy it or fears getting involved with it after all this mess is cleared up, then it's a quick fix and a doomed business model.
I can't wait to see how they will spin this. "SGI ADMITS PLACING SCO CODE IN LINUX!" maybe time to day trade today.
-Nuke the moon
SGI admitting to having contributed some System V code to the Linux kernel brings to mind a question I've had for years: what are the chances that in a big closed source project (like Windows for example), that some developer hasn't used some open source code at one point or another? How do you protect against this?
Is there a process to audit big companies code? MS threatens me with audits to check my license compliance, can I audit them to check that no open source code is in their products?
And for that matter, which license would win? If GPL'd code was found in a product like Windows, would Microsoft be forced to open source the entire thing?
The correct solution in such cases is a) determine if damages apply, and b) cease and desist infringing (that is, remove or rewrite the code).
But if the code is removed, then SCO can't charge everyone under the sun with licensing fees. And if they showed people what the hell code they're talking about, people would be able to remove the code, thus preventing them garnering licensing fees. Since removal of the code is the last thing they want to happen, they are probably unable to even present a coherent case in court. I mean, besides wanting to keep the purported infringements a secret, wouldn't a judge just order the offending code be removed?
I believe their sole strategy is to whine, posture, lie through their teeth, and desperately hope people will be scared and cave in and purchase licenses, as some have done already.
If they actually had a case, they'd take someone to court and win and be done with it. Resorting to scare tactics and hysterical accusations pretty much proves they have nothing, IMHO.
--marmot
P.S. Darl, print a copy of this letter, fold it sharp edges out and stuff it you know where. Best regards, Rich.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
More like:
Dear SCO,
You have just made another enemy, we'll see you in court.
Sincerely,
SGI.
Newsflash: removing the code after the fact doesn't make them any less guilty.
Maybe not, but remember SCO are claiming that end-users owe them money for running Linux. If all code that could even conceivably have been "stolen" from SCO is removed, then even if SCO's claims turned out to be true, people can continue to run Linux without paying them a penny...
Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
I love the way I get modded as "Troll" as soon as I make speculation that is outside of the slashdot collectives hive like worldview.
This place is getting lamer. It is turning into a bunch of "SCO sucks" and "Microsoft sucks" comments and stupid Russia "jokes".
What a spin job.
Only on Slashdot is it somehow a good thing when SGI admits to having put SysV code into Linux. Of course they'll claim it was public domain. But all it shows is that, yes, that stuff can easily end up in the kernel. What else is there that we DON'T know about?
Maybe SCO really does know.
"Sufferin' succotash."
If SGI, whom SCO sued as an afterthought, is guilty, what does that say about IBM, the real defendent. IBM must have really screwed up.
this situation is nothing like the scenario you described. no one got hurt here.
Darl McBride eat your heart out! and kiss my @ss
I love the way I get modded as "Troll" as soon as I make speculation that is outside of the slashdot collectives hive like worldview.
/. headline hype, perhaps it just means you're uninformed, but it seems more likely that you've gone out of your way to post a comment intended to raise hostility, which is a troll.
You get modded troll because you merit it. You read 'did submit some System V code' in the headline and jump on the known contrarian point of view, without bothering to read in the article that the "offending" code is found not only in SysV, but in the public domain. Now, perhaps this just means that you fell for the
>The lawsuit by SCO against IBM certainly has >some merit in the sense that Linux code likely >contains some infringing code.
Ok, dumbass, how does SGI adding code to Linux make SCO's suit against IBM have merit? Initially they claimed IBM had cut and pasted code into Linux.
They seemed to have backpedaled. As Linus has been saying, the SCO case against IBM seems to be a contract dispute. SCO is claiming derivative rights on technology that IBM created.
SCO wants you and investors to be confused but
besides the same derivative claims against SGI, the cases are different as we know it.
A bit off-topic, but in all this SCO issue, I never understood why the end user would be liable.
If I buy say a Ford, and it turns out that Ford stole intellectual property from GM, would I, as a Ford owner whose car specifications have been improved by the stollen IP, have to pay say $200 to GM? I think not. GM should only sew Ford, not Ford car owners.
Now why a Linux user would be liable? Contributors to Linux and other open source project should be liable, but not end users. If SCO limited its action against code contributors, I could understand it (assuming that there are some merits). But can they actually ask end users to pay up? Can this really stand in court?
Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...
"Its like a manufacturing plant owner who allows their facility to fall into disrepair for years. When someone gets hurt on the job, they then rush to make the repairs.
No, this is like the employee refusing a doctor who can determine the extent or reality of his injuries, and demanding $699 from every person who bought something made at that manafacturing plant.
"Neque enim lex est aequior ulla, quam necis artifices arte perire sua."
Hi, SCO execs have swelled the stock up 500% since January. During this time SCO has released no new product, and published no financial gains of any significance. Their Board has dumped hundreds of thousands in SCO stock.
ATTENTION IDIOTS IN THE SEC! THIS IS A PUMP AND DUMP SCHEME! PLEASE SAVE OUR COMMUNITY FROM ANY MORE PAIN BY OPENING THEIR BOOKS AND CLOSING THEIR BUSINESS!
I'm quite honestly sick of hearing about this, but I don't blaim slashdot, I don't blaim SGI, SGI is a GOOD COMPANY and has done the right thing, SCO is a group of EXTORTIONISTS (though if I call them a company perhaps I can get them for racketerring and RICO violations as organized criminals) endeavoring to manipulate the stockmarket and our economy. Ladies and Gentlemen this is a VERY serious situation. In fact if this is not quickly remedied, this will turn into another scandal of Enron porportions, and seriously DAMAGE our economy.
Andrew D Kirch
(how's this for an open letter)
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Oct/10012003/business/9 7397.asp:
SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said Tuesday that he understood the extension is being sought "for the purpose of gaining documents from IBM related to the patents they claim. . . . Some of the patents aren't even filed with the U.S. Patent Office, as far as we can learn."
From http://lwn.net/Articles/43592/ the patent numbers are:
4,814,746
4,821,211
4,953,209
5,805,785
Go here http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm [uspto.gov]
Type in the patent numbers into uspto.gov form
You will find them all. Immediately. In fact they load up immediately after typing in the number.
First: I suggest that anyone who's curious to go look at your previous postings. The ones not marked troll or informative have simply been below the radar of argumentative or inflammatory.
Second: Removing potentially infringing code has been at the heart of the SCO vs. Linux community conflict the entire time. Show us the code so that we may remove it from our tree. Remember that the IBM vs. SCO fight is in contract law. That's what makes this whole $699/SCO Linux License thing absolutely garbage.
Third: "may well have been," is simply management lingo for saying "it's all in the public domain" and still giving yourself an out if, by some horribly stupid oversight, there is one single line in those 200 lines that wasn't in all of the ancient Unicies that were released into the public by SCO/Caldera previously.
Fourth: Go look at the linux kernel mailing list on why that code should have been gone long ago. It sucked. The code was removed before the whole SCO/SGI/infringing code deal came to light.
HTH. HAND.
Can you even call it Karma Whoring any more?
its hard NOT to have good Karma since they changed the system.
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
If the only exceptional code produced at SCO is an atoi function, then maybe you should get some better people.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
Uh no, if you REAL THE ARTICLE you would see that SGI said that the code MAY BE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. You obviously didn't read it and are one of the reasons that this site is going downhill. You were probably the mod too.
SCO is not going to open up anything to examination, because it will show how much GPLd and BSD code they've appropriated and misused.
It's all a big bluff. I predict that the whole issue will mysteriously evaporate overnight. I'll bet money as soon as the legal proceedings get to a point that requires substantiating any of their claims, it will all go away. Just like their plan to invoice 1500 Linux users....
---
SCO is weenies
Gator is Spyware
Microsoft is thugs
Ar-har,har,har.
Can't post and mod in the same story, f00.
You are as bad as some of the shill trolls over on finance.yahoo.com in the SCOX forum.
As I have stated previously, SCO may have a case here.
Oh, yeah, SCO has a wonderful case. They've shown that malloc() and now, according to SGI, atoi() may have been copied from SysV.
For crying out loud, give me a break - we're talking about functions that companies ask prospective employees to pseudocode to prove that they know how to program! No court in this decade would possibly find for SCO.
I'd love to hear SCO come out and say "Yes, they've stolen our brilliant and amazing atoi() code! They never would have been able to come up with atoi() on their own!"
Somehow I think atoi(), malloc(), and even ate_utils are going to fall under the "who the hell cares??" category. SCO can't possibly win a case based on code like that. There's far too much precedence that they didn't defend it in other cases. Until they show code that a half-blind monkey with one hand couldn't generate, they're posturing, and nothing else.
you also showed a total lack of understanding when it comes to the actual legal issues. that didn't help your cause much either
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
Instead of whining about getting down-modded look at what you posted:
Now SGI is ADMITTING that they put SYSV code in the Linux codebase. Whether or not it has been removed is IMMATERIAL for purposes of this case.
SGI admitted no such thing. SGI said that they looked at the code in question and saw some similarities with Sys V code as well. The fact that the code in question existed long BEFORE Sys V and was also available under public domain means that the reason for the similarity is quite strongly in doubt. Additionally, SCO themselves backed off their claim when it was challenged after the slide show presentation.
If anything this further shoots down SCO's complaints about complete disregard for IP as we have code being removed merely because it MIGHT have copyright issues. This is being done without any information, legal actions, or threats from SCO.
Remember, so far the ONLY company being legally accused of copyright infringement in this whole ongoing tragedy is SCO.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
removing the code after the fact doesn't make them any less guilty.
Just for G&G, lets assume that the code really belongs to SCO and was not from BSD.
Newsflash. SGI was taking painstaking efforts to make sure that nothing that did not belong did not make it into the kernel.
Likewise, when notified that they may have introduced some code, they then made every effort to remove it. So the situation is that they may have made a mistake, and are rectified it upon notice.
In no way, did the LOCS cause a lose of sale to SCO, so no damage done. All reasonable judges would simply throw this out.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
From Dictionary.com:
v. tr. Informal
To qualify with a warning or clarification: The spokesperson caveated the statement with a reminder that certain facts were still unknown.
I for one... *pauses* Eh, nevermind. Even joking about that creeps me out.
Actually it does weaken SCO's attack on SGI considerably.
SCO is claiming SGI's Sys V license is to be terminated Oct 14 if SGI don't take corrective action.
SCO refuse to tell SGI what corrective action it expects SGI to take
Not withstanding that, SGI had made a good faith effort to take the best corrective action they can, prior to Oct 14.
SGI also maintains their licensee is not terminable.
SGI will likely get Novell to waive any SCO puported right to terminate.
Thus SGI will have at least 3 layers of defense (not terminable, Novell, good faith - despite SCO's bad faith) to any termination claim by SCO.
If SCO still announce IRIX is illegal or some such, or try to sue to enforce it, they will (a) fail, (b) get sued for Lanham Act / Trade Libel.
Maybe IBM should but SGI... SGI's stock price is in the tank (currently $0.94) with a market cap of less than 200 million. Chump Change for IBM...
Zoid.com
Many Linux bigots have criticized the involvment of American companies in the development of Linux because, according to the bigots, the companies will end up in controlling the development of Linux.
This is complete astroturfing. I HAVE seen closed source supporters call Linux and other OSS projects "foreign software", but I have never seen that logic flipped by the OSS guys. Your a troll and your simply attempting to cause an emotional reaction in people based on their patriotism.
--fatboy
I've seen a lot of people for the last few months expressing outrage over SCO's actions. If you are convinced that SCO has no case and that their claims are false, why not short their stock? Put your money where your mouth is. I have.
SCO has a P/E ratio over 80 lately which indicates it's stock price is inflated anyway so it makes sense. If they're going to be a bunch of lying bastards, why shouldn't we profit from them going out of business?
That would be interesting.
I can see it now.
GM: Excuse me, would you please pass the Blue Thread? Thanks. (goes to work on a big blue F)
Perhaps you meant "sue."
Well, the humor was apparently lost on the mods.
What I can't understand is how the chances of either opponent in a court seem to be modified by their wealth. Money seems to buy justice quite easily in USA... (Elsewhere too, probably. "-1 Naive"?)
blah
Most. Ovarrated. Evar.
Actually, you don't seem to get it. Copyright violations are not criminal offenses, but civil ones.
The question is not "guilt" but damages. A party who claims damages must show that they took steps to mitigate them. This is normally by notifying the offender of the offense so they can stop doing whatever it is. Then the case proceeds to assess if damage took place that should be compensated.
SGI removed code, so now the possible damages are limited to the economic damage that was caused while the code was present, if any, and if they actually used code not in public domain.
In your example if a manufacturing plant did not repair a situation that was shown to cause injury they would be more liable for future events. The fact that repairs were made afterward shows that steps were taken to prevent future injuries and this lessens their future liabilities while showing response to the current situation. It may not have effect on the case of the injured employee.
The SCO analog is that SCO claims "injury" but can not specify what should be repaired to correct the situation. In the manufacturing plant context thi is like claiming that I now own the plant because it caused injury, but I won't tell you what to fix.
So how can someone get a sysV license and source code these days?
I've got it! The real objective behind these ridiculous statements SCO is making: to consolidate and solidify support for the GPL and Linux by making large companies like IBM and SGI make public statements in support! Sure, contributing code to Linux is all very well, but until now the press releases had always been a little diffident and scattered. Now the industry is unified and strong in support of Linux and the GPL. Since the GPL hadn't been tested in court, what better way to help than by filing a completely ridiculous case against it? "The GPL is invalid because US Copyright Law only allows you to make one copy."
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
To support the fight against terrorism and SCO! Sorry for being redundant :)
But you must remember, SYSV is quite old and was released into the public domain.
SVR4 is not. Since the code beared some resemblance to the ancestor of SVR4, it is a good idea to remove it to avoid any confusion, especially if it was redundant.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
There is a reason for Hamlet stating "The laws delay" in his famous To be or not soliloguy
They need to sit back and do pretty much nothing, other than make demands on SCO to produce the eveidence through discovery if they indeed get sued.
Second SGI needs all the press they can get so maybe something useful can come out of this. SGI would love to be mentioned in every sentence next to IBM and RH.
Help fight continental drift.
SGI found a few bugs during the review process and turned them over to quality assurance.
:-)
It probably wasn't a total waste.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
I fail to see how this damages Linux. This does not make linux any less appetizing to corporations, unless the corporations don't actually have anyone knowledgable about anything.
it understands all 4 Unicode encodings, can recognize east asian ideograms for digits and power of ten grouping, and even understands that whole french thing with the period and comma being switched (WTF IS WITH THAT ANYWAY???)
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
I dont think SCO's case is strenghening. At the same time, the public opinon (and maybe the opinion of the tech people) is not going to be improving if, as in the light of the SSL vulnerabilities, they throw the following statement to CERT for their advisory: " SCO: We are aware of the issue and are diligently working on a fix " Really? Are there any programmer left there or do they have lawyers starting training on "editing with vi"? Or on the other hand, if OpenSSL is GPL'd, what thing other than the "shaky" GPL does give them the right to use them in the future (or in the past, given that it seems they have the problem, since they're working on a fix (or should I say expecting someone else to come up with the fix)) ....
> There's far too much precedence that they didn't
> defend it in other cases.
Your other points are valid but that one, unfortunately, is not. They can be as selective as they want to in enforcing their copyrights.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Bullshit. Are you trolling for SCO?
As I have stated previously,
You were wrong then, too.
Now SGI is ADMITTING that they put SYSV code in the Linux codebase.
No they're not. They're saying that they found code that happens to match some Sys V code in what they submitted -- less than 0.02% worth. The exact provenance of that code isn't clear, SysV may have got it from the same place SGI did. Your statement implies several levels of culpability that is just plain not in the SGI letter.
Whether or not it has been removed is IMMATERIAL for purposes of this case.
What case? So far the only "case" (lawsuit) is between IBM and SCO, and between RedHat and SCO. IF SCO decides to launch yet another lawsuit and sue SGI for copyright infringment (and remember, SCO has NOT made any copyright complaints against IBM (but IBM has against SCO)), then there may be a case. But SGI's action in removing the questionable code is VERY MATERIAL -- it limits SCO's claims. (Furthermore, since SCO has so far refused to reveal what code it thinks infringes, it may have no claim because it hasn't taken the necessary steps to mitigate damage.)
-- Alastair
..Hell, I like anyone that writes letter in ascii text.
Go SGI !
Maybe someone here has the background to dig into the following.
4 .h tml
Here's something very interesting. Accoring to this page:
http://www.info-discovery.com/solaris/html/node
"At present, the most widely used release is System V Release 4 (SVR4), a large rewrite of the kernel to incorporate features from System V Release 3, BSD 4.3, SunOS and XENIX into a single operating system. This voracious merging engendered the prevailing SVR4."
This is even more intersting when you note that even SunOS is based on BSD, and XENIX - even though based on AT&T Unix, later incorported BSD code. See: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix
Even if BSD, SunOS, and XENIX code was not copied directly to create System V Release 4, it would be difficult for SCO to win a case over trade secrets and Unix methods, when they incorporated so much from other people's functionality.
This may also explain why there are small variations and similarities between System V, BSD, and Linux code, and why SCO sees those as attempted obfuscation.
We all know Microsoft (and to a lesser extent, Sun) is using SCO as a proxy combatant against Linux supporters in order to discredit Linux and the GPL. Now enter SGI with SCO's threats to revoke their Unix license and use them as a prime example of IP violations within the Linux regime. As one poster has stated, SGI's stock is in the toilet and it is facing declining revenues. Enter IBM. IBM should make an *investment* in SGI to fund a legal challenge against SCO. SGI really needs to enjoin the SCO v. IBM and Redhat v. SCO cases on the side of the "good guys." With SCO publically threatening to revoke the IRIX license, this is proof positive that SCO intends to cripple SGI's attempts at conducting business, not to mention the Linux threats. IBM could really use another party joining the anti-SCO alliance and an investment could secure this. C'mon, IBM, make your move.
I myself have my fingers crossed SCO will rant against Apple, because Apple won't put up with that one bit... I would love to see a brawl with SCO on one side, and IBM, Redhat, SGI, Novell, SuSE and Apple on the other. The criminal charges would fly, and you'd see McBride confess it was all a scheme cooked up by Steve Balmer afterall... And glory be, the Consent Agreement violated again...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Darl Vader is writing a new book.
its calle B(CEO)FH bassed on the popular BOFH.
Too bad.
- - - If the sun is a star, why can't I see it at night?
while :;do curl http://www.sco.com/ >/dev/null 2>&1;done
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
But i kick myself every time i think. instead of blasting SCO. i could have bought $2k of stock the day they sued IBM. sold a month ago, iand i would have a G5 a new powerbook and one of those athlon thingys.
DARN morals suxors.
Well I had good karma and could moderate and everything. Then I had one post moderated troll by some poe faced humourles git and of course when I posted again to object that got moderated off topic (I've since noticed that this is normal). My karma has shown as bad ever since and now I can only post at 0. boo hoo!
That's very perceptive of you Mr Stapleton and rather unexpected in a G Major
Now that would be justice. But in America, justice can cost a lot of money.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I wondered about this too, but I don't think much damage has been done at all. Look at Microsoft, and the amount of legal troubles they have encountered. Have they been damamged by it? PHBs don't read tech news, and this story has really not made much more than a blip on anything other than high-tech reports. Furthermore, who carries more weight and credibility - IBM or SCO? PHBs also have a short memory when it comes to money. If something can save them money, they'll do it.
I have some friends who use and follow Linux, and they are barely aware of the SCO lawsuit. Unless you read the daily SCO stories on Slashdot, then it kind of blends in with all of the other tech news. But ultimately, the "damage" will come when the verdict is reached. (i.e. none, because SCO will lose.) In that case, "Linux" (really the GPL) has gone to court and won, so it will have some established credibility in the legal community. Up to this point, it hasn't really been tested.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Unless, of course, the code was in existance prior to inclusion in Sys V or other versions of UNIX, then the owner would be someone else entirely.
I am for open source as much as any enlightened software developer but sometimes we have to accept things we don't like. It is not in the best interests of the /. community to make assumptions that SGI is not legally liable for the introduced code by using the statements in their open letter. SGI's statement that they've removed the offending code and that it is probably public domain is as credible as SCO's statements that users should start paying royalties. Neither has had to prove their statements in the arena of open letters. This works best in court and likely a court case is the only way to solve this disagreement. I've read statements that have said it's only atoi and look it's already in the public domain but that's not the real issue. The fact is, for all developers, the law should protect every line of copywritten code. The reason is simple, if the law can't protect someone as large as SCO, what chance does the little one man programming show have? This is not to say that I agree with the tactics of SCO, they are completely unacceptable and outside of the boundries of good taste and good faith. But not all people feel bound to the unwritten rules of being a good person. It is the perogative of SCO to act this way and for what positive reason, I cannot find. Let's hope that even if SGI does get into trouble for this alleged breach of copyright, this entire fiasco turns into good press for SGI and causes all sorts of trouble for SCO in the future.
I don't think one paragraph is enough to make it a derived work.
You're free to leave.
Maybe someone here has the background to dig into the following.
4 .h tml
Here's something very interesting. Accoring to this page:
http://www.info-discovery.com/solaris/html/node
"At present, the most widely used release is System V Release 4 (SVR4), a large rewrite of the kernel to incorporate features from System V Release 3, BSD 4.3, SunOS and XENIX into a single operating system. This voracious merging engendered the prevailing SVR4."
This is even more intersting when you note that even SunOS is based on BSD, and XENIX - even though based on AT&T Unix, later incorported BSD code. See: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix
Even if BSD, SunOS, and XENIX code was not copied directly to create System V Release 4, it would be difficult for SCO to win a case over trade secrets and Unix methods, when they incorporated so much from other people's functionality.
This may also explain why there are small variations and similarities between System V, BSD, and Linux code, and why SCO sees those as attempted obfuscation
... is why the offending code was removed.
We continually are hearing about yes, it was SysV code, yes it was PD, but we removed it because there was allready _BETTER_ code in place in the kernel...
I've seen comments to this effect repeatedly now. This ought to be a revelation to a some folks (unfortunately not the ones at SCO...)
What the whole thing boils down to in a nutshell:
We didn't use your code, because your code bites.
Which leads to Sensitive's corollary:
Why would I steal SCO's code after I've used SCO's product based on that code?
Ave Linus, constructuri te salutant! (I think I blew the tense there...)"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
The BSA can't burst in with federal marshalls unless they have a "tip", which they get by encouraging disgruntled employees to blow the whistle. Surely there must be SOME employees at any of the thousands, well, dozens, ok several...yikes ONE big software company we're all thinking about who knows of some infringing code and is sufficiently disgruntled to report it. Can Linux and RMS then call the feds and bust in on Redmo...er...company HQ for a code review? Boy would I love to see BSA's logic turned against its wielders.
Actually, I was trying to be Insightful, not Funny.
dumbass.
Psychic intuition tells me those 200 lines consist of some of the following:
/*
{
}
return;
int i;
i++;
while (0)
int main()
#include
#include
};
*/
Does anyone know why an official Linux foundation hasn't emerged over the years, similar to GNU/Apache/XFree/Mozilla etc.
It would seem that in circumstances like these, a legally sound body might carry more weight in court (and have funds at its disposal) than, interviews with Linus and comments on LKML.
That man tried to kill mah Daddy
Cravath, IBM's usual law firm and their law firm in this case, is the biggest name in business litigation. They're incredibly expensive, very thorough, and usually win. If there's some fact or legal argument anywhere that will help the case, Cravath's army of lawyers, paralegals, technical experts, and non-legal staff will find it. Cravath has filled up entire buildings with staff for previous IBM litigation.
Basically, IBM will win this unless their attorneys screw up. And Cravath doesn't screw up. They have enough people checking each other to prevent that. That's the Cravath business model.
Reasonably soon, the IBM-SCO case will reach the discovery stage, where SCO will have to disclose documents to IBM's attorneys. We'll probably see some interesting disclosures about the SCO-Microsoft deal.
Meanwhile, SCO's stock is down from a high of 20 to about 15 today.
but that I thought it would be better to remove any possibility of violation, chances are that would be the end of it. The court would see that I performed due diligence to detect and fix the problem.
Due diligence is good but if a court finds you negligent then you are liable for damages.
What slashdotters fail to understand is that correcting the violation does not make the problem go away. It is much more complicated than that.
Main Principles: "#6 Use software leverage to your advantage. Good programmers write good code, great programmers borrow good code."
Your legal analgoue is so far off it makes me wonder if you have the slightest idea what you're talking about. This would be more like letting their building fall into disrepair so they fail to pass fire code, but they repair the building before anything happens. The crime is NOT on par with someone getting hurt, since nobody has been harmed(unless SCO straining their bullshit glands counts).
It's been a long time.
Those who immediately spring to mind are:
1: A simple formula.
2: A pre-defined lookup array.
3: An initially empty hash table that gets populated by one of the other methods when entries are absent. (Speeds up reoccuring lookups.)
4: A jump table based on the ascii value.
I'm sure there's many other possible methods.
Regards,
--
*Art
Function atoi is used to convert a string that has numerical characters into an integer. In fact atoi stands for ASCII to Integer. It is pronounced A to I. The format is simple.
int_var = atoi( string );
As you can see, atoi takes a string as a parameter. It examines the string then returns an integer value. That value is the integer version of the string. You need an integer variable to catch the return value. If the string you pass does not contain an integer or has other weird stuff in it, atoi will return zero.
Why should the growth of Linux destroy Sun? Sun are not a UNIX company - they are a systems provider. They ship software products, they make a considerable amount of money by licensing Enterprise Java. They make some of the best workstation and server products. Solaris - their UNIX - is simply one part of their package. Linux could well replace it in a few years, in low-end and mid-range servers, but this need not hurt Sun.
What IS this anti-Sun thing on Slashdot??
Reading SCO's claims, reading SGI's responses, reading what Novell and IBM have to say on the matter, it all just makes my head swim. In any given flavor of UNIX there has to be such a mish mash of IP claims, cross licensed technologies, and copywrites that I really truly feel sorry for the judge that has to sort this one out when (if) it reaches trial. I can't see how anyone can claim ownership of ANYTHING regarding UNIX with any certainty.
Chris
Many Linux bigots have criticized the involvment of American companies in the development of Linux because, according to the bigots, the companies will end up in controlling the development of Linux.
I have never heard this. And I have been around in the OSS world quite a while. I, however, have heard some American companies label OSS as "unamerican".
So the author needs exaggeration to make his point: he wrote "Many" where "Some" or "I once heard... criticizing" would be closer to the truth.
I also observe that the author needs to revert to name calling ("Linux bigots") to underscore his point.
Appeantly the author was short of solid arguments to substantiate his assertions, otherwise he would have wriiten a well reasoned piece.
SGI has, indeed, had to show their data in public. You can go get the two versions of the kernel and compare them yourself. I'd be willing to bet SGI will happily provid eyou their source of belief the code is PD, and it should be quite easy to research. There are plenty of resources available for that.
This is 180 degrees out of phase with the SCO approach, which has been well documented...
So tell us what the "actual legal issues" are, O Enlightened One?
Tomorrow's SCO press release will say:
I suspect that C compilers written for DOS, Windows, and Mac OS could even be considered 'derivative works of SysV' under this theory. And since so many programs are written in C (or a derivative such as C++) it just stands to reason that each one of those programs is therefore a derivative of SysV. Maybe that's why Darl thinks that all modern OSes are derivatives - they're all written in C, and all your compiler are belong to us!
"Now SGI is ADMITTING that they put SYSV code in the Linux codebase.
No they're not. They're saying that they found code that happens to match some Sys V code in what they submitted -- less than 0.02% worth. The exact provenance of that code isn't clear, SysV may have got it from the same place SGI did. Your statement implies several levels of culpability that is just plain not in the SGI letter."
Er, that is the same thing said in a different way. They admit that they found code that matches some SYSV code in the code they submitted. No one ever mentioned anything about where THAT code may have come from before it was introduced into SYSV.
I love the slashbots, first it is "SCO sucks - there isn't ANY of their code in there." Then it is "OK, maybe some, but its only 0.02% worth - SGI said so".
Removing the code cannot limit SCO's claims as it doesn't change damages that have already occured.
"Satanic Cultists' Operation," indeed.
Perhaps enough that, after big blue knocks a few teeth out of SCO's mouth, they can come and pick the carcass for whatever is left to be aquired in damages?
They've got the cash lying around, and SGI and Apple have much the same "image" (sexy hardware, the artsy-fartsy niche markets, small yet zealous following); it would be a great marriage - SGI's uber-badass kit (admit it, you lust after it) with Apple's killer desktop-Unix OS makes for a company that could seriously market to just about every niche in the computer industry.
Apple could replace the MIPS with Power/PPC chips, roll some cool IRIX tech and hardware support into OS X, maybe even binary compatibility (good luck, I know) and BAM - 1,024 2GHz PPC970s (or POWER4s if you wanna get serious) in a single-image NUMA Octane 3000 running Panther. Throw the xlc compiler on there and that's some good G5 lovin'!
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
"SGI admitted no such thing. SGI said that they looked at the code in question and saw some similarities with Sys V code as well."
Yes, ACCORDING TO SGI. I like how you believe who you want to believe. There is no "fact" that the code in question belons in the public domain. Even SGI didn't claim this. They said it MAY belong in the PD, an interesting choice of words. Sounds like spin to me since if it was in the PD most likely they would have trumpeted it in the press release.
Hey, now there's an idea!
A new class of hated Slashdot readers: evil Karma Thieves who post an article as an Anonymous Coward, thus depriving all the good, honest, hard-working Karma Whores of their cheap-ass mod points.
SCO either has much better or much worse text comparison algorithms than SGI. Sun searched through their 1,000,000 lines of code and found a few lines of potentially infringing code, SCO found 1,000,000 lines...
That is a little bit less levelheaded.
"What SCO is claiming here is unclear. It seems like the wording is regarding patents but they cite Copyright infringements as evidence."
I'm still fuzzy how they can claim any type of patent violation since Sys V code was written before software patents were recognized or granted.
So what's going on here?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I know for a fact that earlier versions of atoi() definitely assume ASCII (otherwise, they'd call it stoi(), right?); of course you could replace my 0..9 check with isdigit(), but that still leaves you with the -'0' hack, which is fairly common. You'd probably want to replace *that* with a lookup table. Feel free to do so; knock yourself out.
Also, note that strtol() can have support for both different bases and different locales; the different bases would be slightly more involved, (replacing the *10 with a *base and possibly adding in A-Z in your lookup table) and the locale support would be as well (for example, ignoring commas or periods or whatever, as is appropriate).
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
And in any case, SGI has already proven how easy it would have been to address the issue if SCO had identified any code they actually had rights to
Removing the guilt is not the same as addressing the issue.
What slashdotters fail to understand is that correcting the violation does not make the problem go away. It is much more complicated than that.
Your Karma can increase just for posting, as long as you don't get modded down. All you need to do is make a series of boring posts in some discussions that nobody is reading anymore, and nobody will pay them any mind. Befriend some people whose postings you agree with, and they might mod you up just for being a fan. You will soon be posting at level 1. Keep posting, but don't be too outspoken until your Karma is back to Excellent.
Then you'll be posting at level 2, able to moderate and you will even be able to risk spouting s#!t. And, if there's something you really want to say but you know it'd get modded down, just post it AC. Anyone who reads at a low threshhold is asking for it anyway.
What is the name of your Kernel? Mines Gloria and shes a hottie!!!!!
Perhaps because shorting a stock is highly risky and not for the faint of heart?
Shorting "highly risky"? That depends entirely on how you use a short. I'll agree that an uncovered short on a volatile stock you don't understand is very very risky. But that doesn't mean the act of shorting is risky, it merely means that *method* of shorting is risky. Shorting can be used as a hedging strategy as well which can be actually risk reducing. Shorting by itself tends to carry a similar amount of risk to buying long on margin. Definitely not for everyone but not insanely risky either. (My definition of insane is writing uncovered call options or anything in the futures market. Your mileage probably varies.) If you trust yourself to pick a stock long, you probably can pick one short.
You'll often hear people argue that shorting carries unlimited risk from the stock going up. This is a bit of a strawman arguement because of both margin calls and the fact that any vaguely reasonable investor will get out once the losses become too large for his risk tolerance and/or investing strategy. True you can lose a lot of money shorting but in real terms your risk is not infinite. Your broker simply won't allow it.
Anyway, you can make a pretty reasonable arguement in this case that SCOX is a stock whose price has gone up >400% in the last 6 months strictly from the announcement of a lawsuit of fairly dubious merit. The fundamentals of the stock do not by any measure I'm aware of support its current stock price valuation. So if you believe the lawsuit is really without merit (I do) then it's probably a pretty good investment to short SCOX. If you aren't so sure the lawsuit is without merit (understandable since our legal system does weird things sometimes) then you probably should keep your money out.
If you are going to short SCO, make sure you know what you are getting into.
I concur wholeheartedly. But the same goes for any investment. You should not make any investment you do not fully understand.
Is there any ancient Unix code that is public domain? I thought the SGI code was previously released under a BSD-like license. Am I being confused or SGI is using terms in a sense that is not legally accurate? Not that it changes much on the validity of the case. I am just nitpicking in the legal terms.
What in the world is a Karma Whore ?!?
I'm not going by SCO's press release. Press releases have to be carefully vetted by legal departments and thus are usually quite timid in any pronouncements of this sort.
l
I would recommend that you turn your attention here: http://perens.com/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html and we can review the source of the ate_utils.c code and more. More in-depth information can be found here: http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/code-comparison.htm
So, by looking at this rather detailed analysis we see that the code in question preceeds Sys V, has been placed into the public domain multiple times, and certainly would be difficult for SCO to maintain any claim over.
The most interesting part of the second link is towards the summary part:
On 3 September 2003, during the AUUG 2003 conference, I participated in a panel discussion with Kieran O'Shaughnessy, the General Manager of SCO Australia, and Con Zymaris, an Australian open source activist. I asked Kieran this question ("How could you miss the BSD license?"), and he replied that this was not supposed to be evidence of real System V code in Linux, just a demonstration of the techniques involved. At first I thought he was just trying to worm his way out of the issue, but it seems to be the party line; I'll chase down other references when I have time.
So, the best that SCO can say is that the examples shown weren't in fact evidence of copying.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
You can't short a stock that is on the down-tick. SCO's been on it for awhile.
True, you can't short on a down tick, but it hasn't been on a continuous down tick. I shorted it within the past week. Maybe it would be a problem if you want to short a huge number of shares (the float isn't enormous) but you can short SCOX right now if you are so inclined.
Considering their record, no one will loan you the stock to short it even if it is on the uptick...
Don't know where you got this idea but it isn't true. You can easily get the shares.
IANAL, but I think not, or at least only under specific conditions and for very limited purposes. Fair use allows for use for specific purposes; for example, quoting in order to facilitate a literary discussion.
I would put header code in a category of instantiating a specification -- as in, "the system call returns a structure with elements having the following names and types" -- and all instantiations of that spec will necessarily be quite similar. Whether your header file infringes would probably depend on the context provided by the specification. If the spec were provided for purposes of interoperability (eg, the POSIX specs) then you're almost certainly not infringing. If it were provided for the purpose of using the system call in a program written for a particular OS, then you might be infringing if you used it to implement a compatible OS.
And if you were copying 200 lines of code that implemented a particular algorithm particularly well into your program, you're almost certainly infringing. Whether you could quote it without permission in a design book could be subject to debate, in large part depending on how a court interprets the size of your "quote". In my experience, most authors writing such a book would take the effort to get permission to quote that much code. The copyright holder would have to take into account their perceived value of the code, since they know it's going to be used without permission after it appears, despite any restrictions that might accompany it.
Something an Anonymous Coward can't be, by definition, since you receive no karma. I wouldn't worry about.
KFG
Email Jobs Now !
Please mod parent up (+1 insightful)
It's clear, common sense and logical. Damn rare sometimes.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
>And in any case, SGI has already proven how easy it would have been to address the issue if SCO had identified any code they actually had rights to
Removing the guilt is not the same as addressing the issue.
What slashdotters fail to understand is that correcting the violation does not make the problem go away. It is much more complicated than that.
Part of the responsibility of the Complaintent in a Copyright case is to identify the material in question such that changes can be carried out in a timely fashion. If guilty, the Defendant would still be responsible for losses during the time the infringement took place, even if the changes are carried out. SCO has argued that identifying the code in question a) would hurt it's case since it would be removed, and b) would reveal their intellectual property. SGI's actions have shown that the offending code can be removed in a reasonable time, that any intellectual property has already been revealed, and that the record of the infringment won't magically disappear from history to prevent prosecution.
Of course, this would only matter if SCO were interested in pursuing copyright infringement claims against alleged perpetrators. As their actions have continually shown them to be interested only in either setting up a licensing scheme for Linux, or killing it entirely, they clearly have no real interest in following the proper procedures for copyright infringement. This is further illustrated by their constant use of the term 'intellectual property', which implies many conventions that may or may not apply to what they actually have the rights to.
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.
You were stealing from SCO and Microsoft the whole time!!
I'll bet if we dig even deeper we'll find Hoffa, evidence of alien abductions, the Lindberg Baby, what women are really thinking and the secret formula to Coca-Cola.
You should all be very ashamed.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
I'm not assuming anything. I'm only basing my statements on what has been directly addressed in SGI's press release. In that case they do specifically mention ate_utils.c and we have a rather in-depth set of analysees about that file and its origins.
Based on the facts present SGI has identified "suspect" code and has decided that the easiest thing to do is simply remove it rather than leaving it in doubt.
It's a hell of a long leap from that to "this says that there is direct Sys V copying in Linux". In fact, not even SCO is willing to say that anymore about ate_utils.c.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Wow, as the orignal poster, I'm now even more amazed at the bias and lack of abstract thought here. Don't get caught up in semantics of my example, just try to comprehend the point, ok?
Maybe altering the analogy a bit will allow you to grasp the simple point I was making:
Its like a manufacturing plant owner who allows their facility to fall into disrepair for years. When someone sues a neighboring manufacturing plant for similar problems, they then rush to make their own repairs.
If you are still stumped, here's the key:
(1) Allows facility to fall into disrepair = SGI not having adequate internal controls in place to insure stolen code was not introduced into their products
(2)someone sues a neighboring manufacturing plant for similar problems = SCO begins court procedings against other unix/linux vendors for infringement
(3)they then rush to make their own repairs = now SGI decides to actually do a satisfactory review of their product to see if any stolen IP resides there.
Are they somehow less guilty now?
And do all dissenting opinions end up as 'Flamebait' here? Nice job.
Ther you go "Off Topic"! you people are so predictable
Goes back to the first solution, all code needs to be reviewed for infringing IP. Which made SCO a very unpopular little boy with his supporters. GNU/GPL/etc... handles the smallest to largest in a very professional matter. I've have not yet heard any solution from the other side of the camp in how to deal with this area of concern.
On a side note, ever feel like your getting profiled. (note to self, I am a forty-two year old lesbian, I am a forty-two year old lesbian, I am a forty-two year old lesbian).
The choice to "license" rather than "sell" is up to the software seller.
Some give you a EULA you must click on and then claim you have agreed to a license. There are plenty of arguments that this is invalid, and in fact this is a sale and not a license, anyway.
But it is absolutely certain that any company that wants to "sell" Linux is free to do so. They decide if they want to "license" it, not the government, and are free to decide to "sell".
All this means that the distinction is meaningless.
PS: people who lease cars have signed a great deal of licensing agreements, but they aren't any more liable than a person who bought a car for an argument between GM and Ford.
Good day.
Somehow I think atoi(), [and] malloc() [...] are going to fall under the "who the hell cares??" category
.
Ah, yes, but SCO has a few surprises for C++ programmers who prefer to use new() and input operators.
Why is SGI using atoi(), anyway? On my machine , atoi() is deprecated in favor of strtol()
Oh, and this is not intended to be flaming as some with weaker constitutions may see it as. I see it like the old trick that older brothers do when waving their fists around but staying in place. Anyone dumb enough to walk within range and get hit can't complain. (I however learned to lunge in and take them out at the knees and kick them in the throat... that gives you ample time to run away while they are trying to breath and wipe the choke wrought tears from their eyes and clean the drool off their chins)
Boies wakes up and puts his pants on one leg at a time just like anyone else. You call the case against Microsoft a win? Last time I looked it wasn't even a slap on the hand. He is over rated. Have you even heard him speak? Gives us all a break he is no uber lawyer. IBM is going to make him wish he never left the Cravath law firm in the process of grinding the company formerly know as Caldera into squished bug pulp.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
nt
Well, I know there's zero altruism in big business, but wouldn't a class action suit headed by IBM against SCO help everybody out?
SGI might die and in dying allow SCO to gain some "street cred" from the markets. IBM doesn't want this, IBM wants SCO to be annihilated. Not to mention, making it a class action suit would allow every kernel developer who ever added a line of code to get in on the ass kicking, It would go beyond destroying SCO, it wouldn't even be a battle, we're talking about thousands of people all getting settlements from SCO. If that can't destroy a company (case Dupont breat implants, asbestos companies etc.) I don't know what can.
No one ever mentioned anything about where THAT code may have come from before it was introduced into SYSV.
You did, when you wrote "they put SYSV code in the Linux codebase."
The phrase "SYSV code" implies a certain provenance, that it originated in SYSV. Microsoft uses Berkeley code in its FTP program. If you independently write an FTP program based on the BSD code, is it correct to say that "you put Microsoft code in your FTP program"?
-- Alastair
Explain how an AC can be whoring for karma please. :)
please send M$ subscription fee $199 and M$ is not responsible if you get mono from it.
yes i also experienced this... :-
Truth nowadays is based upon the general consensus of the many
LINUX IS GUILTY!!!!!
Due diligence. Look it up, Troll.
Almost all the posts I have read focus on whether or not SCO is lying and that, my friends, will be irrelevant in court. I also detect a growing attitude of back-patting, "SCO is fucked so they will loose in court" kind of mentality which strikes me as naive.
Look at OJ Simpson - They found his glove, with his blood on it at the murder scene. All the "facts" pointed to his guilt but did the jury find him guilty? No, they did not.
Take Ken Lay of Enron. Do you honestly believe he will ever serve hard time for stealing 4 billion dollars? Yet purse snatchers do for stealing $50. Is this because the jury will understand the "facts" involved in the case or because Ken Lay can hire better lawyers?
Do you really think any jury deciding the SCO case will be able to tell whether proprietary code was illegally added to Linux? No. They will not.
Can they be persuaded that the gift culture of open source is actually a form of thinly veiled communisim or counter-culture anarchy? Can they be persuaded that the "hackers" who attacked the SCO web site are some of the same "hackers" who wrote Linux, and therefore a bunch of lawless geeks - a danger to society? Can they be persuaded that the works of this shady crowd threaten the very fabric of our capitalist economy? This is the sort of non-technical stuff a jury can understand.
If we're to help the situation, we must find a way to tell the story of Linux to a technophobic jury. We must find how to convince people that Open Source is about freedom to share, not about the enforced sharing of communisim. We must show that the exposure of Open Source development actually forces developers to be more conscious of copyright infringement than in proprietary source. And we must show that the "Bazaar" development model can benefit business and society as much as the traditional "Cathedral" model.
Can a jury understand that? I sure hope so. If you want to debate, this is the stuff to debate. The "facts" are hardly even relevant.
-Glen
Well, since I seem to post tons of offtopic crap as well as derogatory/inflamatory comments, I need to Karma Whore as much as possible to even be able to post.
I wrote the above post before getting my login name.
He is the biggest and most dangerous fucking troll here because he actually checks spelling and grammar to convince unsuspecting readers that he knows what the fuck he's talking about.
Read all his previous comments. Every goddamn thing he talks about contains negative comments about Asia in one form or another. It's obvious he hates anything non-American, or rather anything Asian.
I cannot believe his own bigotry gets modded up as Informative and Insightful all the time.
SGI: Thank you for all of your contributions to Linux, and thank you for investigating and doublechecking your contributions. And thank you for letting us know of your findings. I, among many others read the developments regarding this issue (SCO's ridiculous claims and law suit) and wonder about the future of Open Source. The Linux community, and all computer users to some degree, are ritcher for your contributions. Thank You.
"Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun." -Mr. Burns
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
QUOTE:"You all are a bunch of whiney stupid bitches for automatically assuming SCO has no merit just because its attacking the love of your life, linux -- which is really pathetic of all you; go get a real girlfreind." END QUOTE
A troll telling ME to get a girlfriend... What's wrong with this picture?
It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
You make a damn good point. It won't be a jury of our peers. Unless they hear the case somewhere in Silicon Valley.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
The problem with shorting the stock is to know WHEN. Unfortunately, no one can read the future, so no matter how certain you are that the ultimate value of SCO stock is some approximation of zero, you can't short on the infinite time. You have to say WHEN, and that's risky.
This is true but it is true of any investment, not just shorting. Granted, shorting has some issues peculiar to that investment strategy but there always are timing issues with any investment. We want to buy low and sell high but how do you know what consitutes "low" and "high"? (or in the case of shorting sell high/buy low) Those are relative factors which change over time.
Now your were pointing out that there is some added risk from shorting due to the fact that most stocks tend to increase in value over time. (which I'm sure you know) So, statistically speaking, time is not likely to be on your side for shorting any randomly chosen stock. True but it's just an added risk beyond the exposure risk that exists with any investment. Time can be your friend but it is a fickle friend sometimes.
My point is that, ultimately, determining what "low" or "high" is comes down to a guess. Preferably a highly informed guess, but a guess nonetheless. For example if you bought long Cisco two years ago and held, you probably aren't really thrilled about that now despite it still being a great company. You just bought at the wrong time. it happens. Much effort is put into strategies to minimize investment timing issues, and sensibly so, but there always is some element of timing to any investment. Long, short, or otherwise.
Your post proves the internet is what it was designed to be: a communications line, through which your post has probably been read by a few thousand people at least.
I submit that the idea of copyright is expired:
Surely ANY utterance can now be heard the planet over... How can any one say s/he was the person that caught the wave and therefore OWNS that parcel of our collective human experience?
Parleying human rights so elemental is criminal, indeed.
RIP, MIX and BURN everything!
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
"won't be a jury of our peers." Thank you. You summed up all those wordy paragraphs in one short sentence.
I AM a karma whoring AC, you insensitive clod!