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)
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.
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
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.
"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
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.
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.
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...
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?
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)
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...
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.
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.
I don't see anything new here.
:-)
This was one of my thoughts as well. We still have no real idea what the hell anybody is talking about.
OK, OK, SGI said:
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.
OK so they point out a few places to look, but they also go on to say:
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.
OK, so they found "a few" other things. What are those "other things"? OK, it's cool they are doing a bit of busting their asses to make sure that they are clean and that SCO is wrong, but it would be nice to see a bit more than that.
To any SGI person that may be reading:
I'm not downing the efforts, I'm just questioning the accuracy of what the hell is going on because none of us out here really know the TRUE facts.
I guess I could check with your diff's though...
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
for ( i = 0; i < max; ++ i )
The line of code above belongs to me, I wrote it and everyone who has any similar code, including code resulting in compilation needs to pay me.
The poster of the parent article is herby given notice of infringement and $150,000 damages for each infringement. I estimate that $1e12 (1 trillion dollars) is a good starting point.
The point I'm trying to make is that Copyright laws are far more complex than you make it out to be. Firstly, being a civil suit, damages need to be assesed. If damage to SCO is immaterial, then SCO is far worse position now by revoking SGI's licence because it will be easily shown to the jury as extortion.
As a counter-example, if IBM had released some unique feature, say for example as O(1) scheduler, from the Unix code base, then SCO would have some reason to rattle a little.
I remeber a civil suit once where someone was being sued for service overcharges and once of the pieces of evidence was a $75 overcharge which was even in doubt. The judge turned to the claimant's attorney and said somthing like this, "you have spent half and hour of the court's time attempting to show a transgression of $75. Do you realize just how much that 30 minutes of court time costs ?".
The point is, the judicial system expects parties to be fair. If I make a claim against someone, it is not fair that I make it difficult or impossible for you to continue to do business.
Altmier's letter is an excellent defence for SGI in this case. It shows that a) the infringement was trivial and hence the actual damage is negligible, b) the transgression was corrected rapidly to minimize any pervieved issues and c) SGI was attempting to be as fair as possible. SCO on the other hand is threatening to revoke an irrevokable license and damage SGI's ability to do buisness. If SGI counter-sues for damages of lost revenue they will win because SCO is not acting in good faith.
There is more. "IP" comes in 2 flavours, Copyright and Patents. What SCO is claiming here is unclear. It seems like the wording is regarding patents but they cite Copyright infringements as evidence. Their message simply does not make any legal sense. I recall a discussion once between an attourney and an engineer regarding a legal matter. Typical engineer is trying to navigate to a solution around a county building assessor who was being particularly difficult. After listening to the engineer's brilliant alternatives the attourney says "wait, you forget somthing, the guy is a moron.". This story parallel's the case of SCO vs the world.
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.
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.
Main Principles: "#6 Use software leverage to your advantage. Good programmers write good code, great programmers borrow good code."
It is true that you cannot erase damages, just mitigate them. In this case, SGI is working to remove problems it may have caused, even though SGI believes they can prove that the contributed code was released by SCO under a BSD-style license.
US courts, in addition to seeing the actual negligence or malice involved, will also look at the actual damage caused. If SCO claims damages because code that they themselves released to the public under an unrestricted license was used in a program, they'll be asked to describe exactly what damage was caused.
In addition, if SCO is so incompetent that they themselves did not review the linux code that they were distributing, and that they forgot that they released a lot of code under a BSD license on their own, they will have a hard time proving that SGI damaged them at all.
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!
What IS this anti-Sun thing on Slashdot??
Slashdot is populated by nerds that live in caves of steel, surrounded by nifty little electronic gadgets that never actually get used for their intended purpose. Slashdotters hate the sun because it hurts their eyes and tans their skin, but mostly they hate the sun because there are other people out there.
Like what I said? You might like my music
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.