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."
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.
I don't see anything new here.
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
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.
Yeah this was my kneejerk reaction as well. But if they have already released it into the public domain, then it's there for good GPL or no GPL, right???
"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!
SGI says code MAY have been public domain. The fact that SGI removed it anyway, indicates that there is SOME DOUBT about that.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Well, as the letter states, the code was redudant as well. The functionality provided by the code was already available as a different function, so removing it was the right solution, public domain or not.
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.
I predict SCO is therefore going to be squashed by IBM, SGI, Red Hat etc.
My worst fears about the SCO case is not wether SCO will legally win a single dollar from someone, there is no chance in hell that will happend.
No, my biggest fear is the SCO will somehow manage to slip away, at the last moment, from the much spectacular death they are running full-speed towards, and they will somehow manage to survive and hide in a small hole somewhere.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
- 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.
In the likely event SCO actually sues SGI, SGI can not only defend their code, they can also point out that any necessary corrective actions have already been put in place if SCO has any merit. This will also have the effect of making SCO look bad since they have not diligently pursued their end by refusing to release any information to SGI about the particular code.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
All it indicates is that the code was easily and trivially replaced, so why not go ahead and do so?
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.
No, my biggest fear is the SCO will somehow manage to slip away, at the last moment, from the much spectacular death they are running full-speed towards, and they will somehow manage to survive and hide in a small hole somewhere.
I wouldn't worry about that too much simply because they do not have a business model. Even if they came out tomorrow and said, "never mind" they still have no method of earning money. If they don't have the lawsuits, they don't have the reason to extort money from Sun, MS, HP et. al. I mean, its not like they actually DO anything besides sue, right?
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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
You mean that McBride's rants may actually have a bit of substance behind them?
Ok, I'll make it easy for you. Here's by far the most important part of the letter:
"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."
IOW, the letter can be summarised to, "We don't think we've infringed on [SCO's] copyright as this was BSD code, but it was that easy to replace that we've done it anyway."
Free Gamer - Free games list and commentary
Probably not. Here's my interpretation of this letter:
SGI carfully verified its code base before releasing it under an open source licence. Most of it was code that was completely original to SGI. However it included a few excedingly common routines that have been around forever, have been release as public domain, published in textbooks and distibuted in BSD software for decades. There is no legal justification for anyone owning this code. We figured that the ATT case was the nail in the coffin of this issue and didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to try to claim ownership of this code again. But unfortunately, we were wrong and these morons think that just because SysV uses these extremely common routines that they must own them. To make things easier for everyone, we are have removed this code, and are looking for any other code that will give these idiots bad ideas, and will remove it as well. We appologise for underestimating the extreme stupidity capable of businessmen and layers.
1) The offending, potentially infringing code is being removed.
IMMATERIAL. You cannot just "take back" code and say everything is OK.
However, under copyright law, normal legal practices, and their license agreements, SCO is obliged to attempt to deal with things without litigation, get the code removed, find a mutually acceptable solution. They have made no such good-faith efforts, whatsoever.
2) That code may well have been in the public domain anyway.
MAY HAVE BEEN, according to SGI. However they were concerned enough to remove the code.
Better safe than sorry.
But if they have already released it into the public domain...
Putting something in the Public Domain specifically means you are giving up any copyright to it. NO ONE owns the Copyright for Public Domain works, thus, anyone can use it for any reason whatsoever. Microsoft can use it, you can use it, Saddam Hussan can use, all legally, and no one has any authority to limit how you use it.
The GPL relies on Copyright, and is very unrelated to PD. If you never have read it, go to www.gnu.org and read the GPL. It is very much like any other software license in a legal sense, only the terms are different. Its an interesting read. GPL does NOT mean you can do what you want with it. If you change GPL software, sell or give away a modified binary but refuse to show me the source, you are infringing the copyright, for instance, and subject to getting your butt sued by the owner of the copyright.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
>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.
So, worst comes to worst, the 2.4 kernels that have that code in them are taken off the mirrors and no longer readily available. All other versions of the kernel don't infringe, and the only entity that could reasonably be held liable would be SGI, an entity that would be able to fight off SCO.
On the other hand, what it does is refute SCO's claim that there are over 1 million lines of code that infringe on their IP. SGI makes it sound like, at most, 200 lines infringe, most of which has been removed and found redundant. Does that sound like something worth a $1,599 licensing fee (well, it's not October 15th yet, but do you know anyone planning on paying the licensing fee over the next two weeks?)
In the end, it sounds more like a company doing what most companies do: Realizing that there is absolutely no merit to the case, but taking the easy way out rather than spending money defending itself in court against charges that it doesn't feel like dealing with.
Actually, it's not immaterial at all.
SGI has demonstrated that any copyright violation was inadvertent and that any such copied code was insignificant within the larger work, as it was so easily removed.
Moreover, they've shown good faith by making every effort to mitigate the damages, even though SCO has shown no such willingness (by refusing to identify the infringing code).
As a result, SCO would be unlikely to get anything more than actual damages, which would be small. And, if the infringing code was removed before SCO obtained its copyright registration (which you'll recall was quite late in the game), they probably wouldn't even get that.
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)
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
"On the other hand, what it does is refute SCO's claim that there are over 1 million lines of code that infringe on their IP. SGI makes it sound like, at most, 200 lines infringe, most of which has been removed and found redundant."
Yes, SGI makes it sound like that. Are they going to admit 1 million lines of code is infringing? No, of course not. They will sttempt to say "well, there MAY have been some offending code - but we took it out and its all OK now".
SCO says 1 million, SGI says 200 lines. Who do you trust? They both have something to gain and lose.
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.
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.
> Look, if somone walked into your place of work and
> said "you are running unlicensed software," they'd
> be right.
If by "running unlicensed software" you mean "running software illegally" they'd be wrong.
There is nothing in copyright law that requires licenses. It is quite possible to legally possess and run a piece of copyrighted software without having entered into any license agreement with the copyright owner.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
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?
0%. In Windows 9x (at least), for example, you can run "strings" on some of the networking utilities to get at the BSD copyright statements.
If you're asking about hidden GPL code, though, then it's anybody's guess.
How do you protect against this?
If you're part of the company in question, you could get the source code most likely to be copied (e.g. Linux if you're working on operating systems, Apache if you're writing a server, etc), try running something like Eric Raymond's new comparison program between those sources and your own code, and most importantly let your employees know that you're checking on them and that illegally claiming someone else's copyrighted material as their own is grounds for termination.
If you're someone else and only have access to the closed binaries, then you might try checking for unique symbols or debugging output, but you won't have nearly as easy a time of it.
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?
No. They may get to audit you because that's one of the rights you can sign away to get a cheap site license from them. You don't get to audit them because you've never tricked them into agreeing to it.
If GPL'd code was found in a product like Windows, would Microsoft be forced to open source the entire thing?
No. You can't force anyone to agree to the GPL. You can sue them for past copyright infringement (and probably win big if you've registered your copyrights), but (despite SCO's claims to the contrary) you can't stop them from removing your code and selling their own code no longer encumbered. In the worst case for them, if they wouldn't have a useful product without your code and are redistributing too much to reimplement themselves, then they're pretty much stuck as they've already forfeited their GPL rights and would have to negotiate new rights with every single author whose copyright they've infringed.
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.
SCO/MS are playing the indemnification card to try and add additional finacial burden to linux distributors. Basically if it's a patent case then end users _could_ be held liable. The only patents involved in this case so far are the IBM patents that SCO is infringing.
The question we should all be asking is:
"IS SCO/CANOPY GOING TO INDEMNIFY ITS STOCKHOLDERS?"
Buisness people will be getting shivers down the spine after reading that, but it makes more sense than end users being held responsable for a contract law case.
SCO hasn't litigated yet. They are asking for a license fee, which you can argue is a mutually acceptable solution.
Talk about confused. You are mixing up two parties here.
1. SCO hasn't litigated against SGI yet.
2. They are asking me for license fees, not SGI. But I have no liability.
Mutually acceptable to who? What parties does "mutually acceptable" refer to?
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
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 don't think one paragraph is enough to make it a derived work.
Perhaps because shorting a stock is highly risky and not for the faint of heart? Shorting a stock carries the possibility of losing more money than you put into it. It's possible that I short a stock, it goes up significantly, I get a margin call, and my stock broker comes to me and says "You owe us $20,000. You have 5 days to pay." At least with regular investing I only lose what I put into it.
I'm not saying nobody should do it, but it's obviously not for everyone. If you are going to short SCO, make sure you know what you are getting into.
Thats not what we are discussing.
SGI claims that they exhaustively did an audit of the code and that there were only 200 lines that they know of. That is not verifiable. They may be lying. No one ever claimed that SGI didn't submit patches.
There was never any question as to whether there was common source in SysV and Linux.
The question as to *where that source came from* has not been answered, nor has SCO made any attempt to even address it.
SCO asserts that it is all proprietary code, and it all "belongs" to SCO. However a great deal of "free" code (BSD license) is known to have made its way back into SysV. Nothing wrong with that, the BSD license makes that perfectly acceptable. But it's still not SCO's code -- they can use it all they want, but they can't restrict its use elsewhere.
SCO/Caldera released a great deal of the legacy Unix code under a BSD type license. Not SysV, but I'd bet that a lot of that earlier code is still in SysV. Anything that made use of that earlier code did so perfectly legally, yet it may very likely match existing code still within SysV.
It doesn't matter that there is matching code. What SCO is alleging is that code that *they own* has been incorporated into Linux, and that is a completely different issue. They have still not shown *anyone* any evidence of *that*.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
You understand the GPL about as well as SCO's lawyers do. The GPL is not a user license. It only applies when modification and distribution are involved. As a mere user of a 2.4 kernel, the GPL does not affect me in any way, and there is no licensing involved between me and the authors of the software.
It is easy to become a FUD victim from reading SCO's press releases. Take away the ambiguities and their case turns to tissue paper. It sounds reasonable to say that you need a license to use their "intellectual property", but "intellectual property" is only a general description of copyrights, patents, and trade secrets. If you try to state SCO's position using one of these more accurate terms, it can't be made to even sound reasonable (I am not copying, they don't own patents, and nothing in the kernel is secret).