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."
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 :)
SCO is quick with their reply to 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.
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...
serving text/plain is quite strenuous on those small servers
"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?
In any organization this will happen. SCO is saying that IBM moved the code into Linux on purpose to destroy UNIX.
This is very different from an inadvertant violation. If you took me to court and I could present evidence that I did not include your code purposefully, that I removed the offending code as soon as I knew about it and presented documentation that the code was public domain, 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.
That is why Linus and others keep on challenging SCO to show them the code so that they can perform their legal obligation and remove it. These people have also said that the fact that SCO won't show the code probably indicates that there are no violations, and certainly not on the grand, purposful scale SCO alleges. Look, if somone walked into your place of work and said "you are running unlicensed software," they'd be right. I have never seen a business that was NOT running unlicensed software. Does that mean they did it on purpose to destroy the maker of that software?
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
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
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.
Perhaps there is already a freely-available atoi(3) implementation that can be used by the Kernel? Yes, in fact there is! Even better, it coincides with the atoi(3) function that was removed! Woohoo! We are saved! There is not even eny need to look further afield, like the multitude of *other* free implementations around the place (say, glibc? BSD?), or (at last resort) actually finding a master C programmer to lock himself in a room for the long winter months in an effort to come up with an independent implementation.
The funniest thing is, that it probably WOULD take a huge effort by a master programmer to actually find an implementation of atoi(3) that was truely independent
Tomorrow's SCO press release will say:
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.