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!
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.
"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?
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.
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
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...
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
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?
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.
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.
Basically, SCO is claiming they own the rights to
"Once upon a time"
and SGI is saying ok, we had been using "Once upon a time" but since SCO says they own it, we will replace it with "Long ago and far away", because we know that is public domain. We are pretty sure that "Once upon a time" is too, but we don't want to fight about it.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Tomorrow's SCO press release will say:
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.