Slashdot Mirror
SGI Code Changes Not Enough, Says SCO
yeremein writes "According to this vnunet.com article, SCO's code changes Update: 10/04 20:51 GMT by T : (This should read "SGI's" rather than "SCO's.") removing arguably System-V-related code from SGI's Linux submissions is 'not enough.' According to Blake Stowell of SCO,
'Making minor amendments to its XFS file system doesn't cure the breach. SGI must do more as outlined [in the August letter] to cure all of their breaches.' But later on in the article, we learn what was outlined in the August letter:
'We don't believe that SGI has taken all of the steps necessary to cure all of the breaches, and in fact in our letter to them, we state "SGI's breaches of these agreements cannot be cured."' So SCO essentially told SGI, 'You're in violation of our contract and unless you remedy the violations, we'll pull your UNIX license. Oh, BTW, you can't remedy the violations.' This looks to me like the clearest example yet of how SCO is acting in bad faith." Read on below for another snippet of SCO strangeness.
An anonymous reader writes "As many are aware, SCO has sought (and got) a 4 month extension to its IBM lawsuit. According to the Salt Lake Tribune: '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."' I thought this was worth looking at, and quickly found that the patents in question are 4,814,746, 4,821,211, 4,953,209, and 5,805,785 - which can be found by typing in their numbers in this USPTO form."
I assume that should read "SGI's code changes" at the beginning?
SCO is willing to go for broke on this one. Removing the code is really irrelevant, because they want to collect on all the "back damages" they believe they are owed.
If SGI put SCO code into Linux, and then individuals with no connection to SGI used that code, SCO wants to be able to hold them liable for past usage, even if the code was completely expunged from the current tree.
Rational? It doesn't matter what we think. In the end, it will come down to an old man in a black robe.
Some of the patents aren't even filed with the U.S. Patent Office
How can you have a patent without be filed with the patent office?
Can someone tell me if IBM has suffered in the form of sales of it's AIX product due to having the license terminated?
Blah blah, we need more media exposure to pump our stocks, blah blah, nothing you do will ever clean the Linux kernel of our code because we ARE UNIX, blah, blah, looking forward to federal slam me in the ass prison, blah, blah, insert mindless dribble here.
And if you're reading this, you owe us money.
Darling McSly
It seems that SCO is just trying to piss off the Open Source community. Breaches that can't be remedied? How exactly is this possible? Programs can be written hundreds of different ways. I think SCO is making up its rules as it goes along, much like a race I participated in during 5th grade. I clearly won, but my opponent then seated himself and said, "er... you have to sit down too, so I win!" That's no good.
Esoteric reference.
Just like you can own code you never wrote, bought or saw.
I'm hoping that any of the smaller less lawyer-friendly companies suffering from SCO's claims can hold in long enough for this to blow over . It seems that nothing but time is going to get rid of SCO and their outrageous claims, which this current claim confirms.
Basically, SCO is asserting that "you're f**ked no matter what you do", which for anyone who is thinking of at least trying to remove possible infringments is stating "why bother."
Nothing is going to stop SCO but time. For every legitimate counter-action and counter-claim, they'll simply come up with more and more unbelievable and unreasonable rebuttals. Until SCO gets taken down in court, there's not much anyone can do about this unfortunately. The fact that SCO execs are dumping stock like hot potatoes proves that they don't believe they have a chance... but that won't stop them from maintaining their current stance of idiocy and oppressiveness.
SCO want's SGI to remove the entire XFS system code and even that may not be enough for SCO since everthing that has even the most remote connection to UNIX is a dervztive. I have a UNIX Primer book in the bookshelf next to me so this message is probably a UNIX derivative and anyone who reads it will need to pay a licensing fee to SCO.
Here are the USPTO links, for ease of consumption:
US Patent 4,814746
US Patent 4,821,211
US Patent 4,953,209
US Patent 5,805,785
That doesn't make sence since the vast majority of Linux systems in use don't require any of the features SCO is claiming rights to.
You're running a scam
Any AC can see that
Go back to Utah
Rank Presidents by th
Would someone please just break through SCO's firewall, "borrow" the System V code tree, run the comparisons, and publish them for all the world to see? Then we can quickly put this matter to rest and then move on to the inevitable next phase: "Sue the pants off SCO for integrating Linux code into UNIX while disobeying the GPL". *sigh*
As it looks it will never be enough.
And looking at two factors:
1. SCO is not willing to take any approach to solving problem (FSF approached them, they didn't answer), nor willing to take any solution as creditable
2. SCO is currently making more money than it would if problem would be solved
the only solution is to take this to court as soon as possible. Then everything will matter again. Until then just let SCO bark as it does.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
From article, citing SCO letter: "unrestricted disclosure, unauthorised transfer and disposition, and unauthorised use and copying"
In other words, you must bleed, SGI (or at least pay up to my pinkie's desire). They seem to think they're district attorny or something. Clue to SCO: you're involved in a CIVIL case.
Once again no actual info such as "remove this" or "do that". They don't even want to make a solid case it seems. Or they're really the deranged cult that some portray them as.
According to this slashdot story appearing Thursday, the SCO code had already been put in the public domain by SCO. As such, it is hard to imagine what the material damage to SCO is. It seems hard to imagine that they could go after end-users with that.
Now, that said, they might be able to construe a breach of contract with SGI out of it. What does SCO gain there? Well, one loss is certainly clear. They will no longer get the license revenue from SGI for IRIX. So, this might be a revenue trimming strategy.
SCO is also pursuing this strategy with AIX. Ultimately, deligitimizing all of the commercial unixes might just push faster toward Linux adoption.
The problem is, it'd be a suit against SCO. The executives are gonna get off clean. SCO will just cease to be, and all the honest investors will get screwed.
The only people who can make a class-action suit work are the investors who are getting screwed, and if they knew that, they wouldn't be getting screwed right now.
That's why the legal system needs to change in regards to corporations.
It's clear that these people want to destroy *nix, destroy the GPL, the Open Source community... the whole concept of Intellectual Property altogether. Not to mention (but I will) that they don't intend to stop until rob all monetary value of any software and/or services derived therefrom.
It's war. SCO declared it, and is actively on the attack. They intend to vanquish their enemies... us. To win this war, you defeat them, crush them... DESTROY them.
IBM, SGI and the rest of SCO's declared enemies should join forces and take these people down... and crush them so badly that noone else should ever even THINK of pulling this nonsense again.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Did you ever even read what SGI admitted to? They admitted to adding code which didn't infringe on anything! It was already public domained, they just removed it because SCO would shut up about stuff being from SystemV. SGI hasn't officially even stolen any code.
Also, there has to be at least SOME proof of it being even SLIGHTLY intentional, or they're given a chance to solve the problem. They pulled *200* lines for *2,000,000* lines they had contributed.
Oh, my god, how could they possibly have missed that.
By the way, pull your head out of your ass.
Then I want to let SCO try to prove in court that "thier" code was required for Linux to thrive. It would also show a judge that SCO's potential customer base for UnixWare was a tad smaller than SCO likes to claim.
This would be better than replacing the code short term. It would show that the technologies which SCO says customers would have purchased UnixWare to get were in fact virtually irrelevant.
The right to speedy trial is a criminal thing. As this is a civil case, they can drag it out as long as they see fit. Which, in this case, is long enough to make everyone so sick of it, someone will want to come along and offer $2 more than current market price per share to buy SCO just to shut them up.
What?
Because, like most companies (and individuals), SGI doesn't like being involved with lawsuits unless it has no other choice. They're damaging financially and publicly, even if you win. SGI is also proving that they're willing to try to remedy any "harm" that has come to SCO before going to court for it. SGI can show that they tried to fix it, but can't really be faulted if SCO is foaming at the mouth and cannot be reasoned with.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
The right to a speedy trail is applicable in criminal cases where a person is deprived of thier freedom - i.e. in jail. The speedyness of civil lawsuits just plain doesn't exist.
The right prevents the law officers from imprisoning people and keeping them locked up indefinately while they delay the defendants trial.
The speedy trial thing in the 6th amendment applies to criminal cases. The SCO stuff to date all involves civil cases. Both sides in this dispute have been allowed extensions, it's all a part of the game.
[O]ne should not name the devil
I've heard that, if you say "Litigious Darl" three times in a dark room in front of a mirror, a mysterious check will be drawn onto your bank account. Wooooo.....
Option-Shift-K.
Behind every delusion there is a seemingly rational thought process. Usually reality is twisted to fit, but here goes:
SCO owns Unix (not really, but...). Unix is worth ??? billion in sales each year. It is ours, since we own Unix. We are generous, so those who put it on disk can have a few bucks for the trouble.
Since we own Unix, and own all derivatives of Unix, (original AT&T contract) the derivatives, such as RCU, XFS, etc are ours too.
Some lowlifes such as IBM and SGI DARED to give away what is ours. We will put them out of business. All their customers will flock to us, the Real Owners of Unix. They will use the real Unix, which will include all of our intellectual property, such as Samba, Linux, XFS, RCU etc. We will get rich. Everyone will beg to use our Intellectual Property!
World Domination!
Derek
Three things really: Revenue. Royalties. Cash.
They couldn't figure out how to make money selling Linux, so the new management sought a new strategy -- make money whenever someone else sells Linux.
As a result, they're not interested in any outcome which dosn't give them a cut. They want to monetize Linux so that they are the toll takers.
It's like the story of the goose that laid the Golden Egg. Any attempt by SCO to exact a toll on Linux installations will cause implementers to move to BSD. Like the Internet, Free Software will route around any attempt to collect royalties. Collecting a toll will kill Linux, but the code will live on.
Not that SCO's legal arguments will put them in a position to collect the royalties they covet. Their legal arguments are as incompetent as they are laughable. Their derivative works ideas are contrary to copyright law as interpreted on this planet. They don't understand how they are bound by the GPL becuase they distributed Linux under it for years and made their IPO on the strength of Linux's promise. Plus, IBM's undead lawyers will be drinking their blood over patents.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
You do not go after someone with shallow pockets on a flimsy claim on a contingency basis.
They might be rodents but they are not dumb rodents.
Adding SGI to the IBM claim makes the issues harder for SCO as both IBM and SGI can point the other party if they need to. SCO can't just claim that One or the other did somethng they have to be specific, so it adds legal risk with pretty much zero legal upside.
Help fight continental drift.
SCO will just cease to be, and all the honest investors will get screwed.
Honest investors? It may be an old-fashioned view, but doesn't investing in a company by buying shares imply that you agree with the company's aims and ethos and wish to support its business?
The net effect of this maybe to just invalidate any license SCO grants in the future.
As a customer when I buy commercial software, I understand I am buying a license. If I buy a copy of office at Staples or CDW, I am buying a piece of software thats mine within the terms of the license. I have never heard of Microsoft retroactively terminating a license.
SCO is establishing a history of terminating, irrevocable licenses. If your'e company X, you now have to think twice about enterring into any license agreement with a company that has shown such little regard about honoring agreements. If you are a current licensee and SCO has terminated your license you can certainly argue that they have established a history of frivolously and fraudulently doing so.
The net effect of SCO's litigation, and out of courtroom antics may very well be to effectively nullify their ability to enforce their property rights in an economic manner. Now, if I were a SCO shareholder and all of a suddent SCO weren't able to enforce license agreements or Sell new SCO server licenses I might look into pursuing the board and officers of SCO for violation of fiduciary duty. But thats just me.
SGI violated SCO's copyright.
Actually, it remains to be seen if SGI did so. They removed contriversol code. Sadly, SCO is trying to claim xfs code as theirs. And there is little chance of that being so.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You know, I see just the opposite.
At the company I work for, (and I've heard others doing the same), they're easing back on Linux for mission critical applications and instead buying AIX boxes.
There is no rationality to that at all. After all, IBM is the only one who's actually been sued. Perhaps they have more faith in IBM's legal department than they do in their own.
Slightly OT: I just had a couple of P-series boxes get back-ordered for about a month. My rep told me that the Department of Homeland Security ordered a bunch of AIX boxes - so many that it put manufacturing behind. Tom Ridge must not be too worried about all of this.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
- SCO showing some Linux code that it claimed infringed its IP
- That code being tracked back to SGI
- That code being shown to have been removed from the kernel for being too crufty
I think this was the "Greek" code sample from Germany, anyone know for sure?UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
I meant, specifically, those who have been suckered by SCO's hope, as a group separate from those who are in on the stock scam and busy cashing out.
Fine. Lets assume that they invested 2 years ago on some form of hope. If so, then they should have bailed by now. If investors from about 6 months ago, they would have made a killing. If investors from 3 months ago, they can still have doubled/tripled their investments. But once it was shown that this was a scam, they should have been selling. If they are, well, then, it is their own problem.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
SGI found some code that seemed likely to have come from old Unix code. The code has almost certainly been released under the BSD license, so it was extremely unlikely to have been infringing in that sense. However, there may have been an issue with the proper copyright notice being included with the code. Additionally, the functionality of the code was provided by other other, original code in a different location, and the second implementation was superior to the code in question. SGI removed the old code.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Perhaps you haven't heard of this thing called "public domain". See, when something is in public domain, copyright can't be enforced with regard to it. Sooo, even if the code in question *was* originally written as part of SysV, if it's in the public domain, no harm, no foul. (And anyhow, damages for 200 lines of code implementing a very well-known algorithm can't be very high).
...and whether or not the judge thinks SCO's blowin' and goin'. That weak response from SCO in regards to the initial filing probably won't float, especially with Red Hat's reply to the response. SCO's got very little rope left from which to hang itself with the Red Hat case- the only way they're going to not get a declaratory decision on them very shortly is if they come back with an actual strong response to the recent Red Hat reply.
I don't see them doing it.
Based on Red Hat's claims in the filing, a temporary injunction is likely to be handed down from the court since there IS controversy and they ARE obviously guilty of what Red Hat's claiming if they can't come up with conclusive proof of their public, business statements.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
How clueless is this argument?
There are actual definitions of what constitutes an actual infringement of copyright. 200 lines of code, unless in a single block, don't apply.
If such a small segment (out of the whole) was allowed to be prosecutable under copyright law, it would be feasable to copyright the use of single words, such as 'a' and 'the' -- or even letters for that matter.
Then they have to prove that the code was in fact directly copied.
This is not the same as showing they read the same.
They have to have prove that a guy at SGI did this -- such as video footage, etc. There is a light-years difference in leagal terms, between knowing something, and PROVING it.
SCO is honestly setting themselves for the bitch-slap of the century (and it's just 3 years into it!!!).
Linux is FAR, FAR from dead. Even if you believe SCO's line (which they have yet to give ONE SHRED of proof-- EVERYTHING they have used as 'proof' has been discredited so far.). BUT even if you believe SCO's line, it only applies to LARGE, ENTERPRISE-LEVEL features of Linux, which is only used by a tiny fraction of computers. SMP, NUMA, RCS, JFS & XFS? Well, frankly, SMP existed in linux since 2.0 -- well before what SCO claims rights to. NUMA doesn't exist on 99.9999999999% of the world's computers (I may be off by a decimal place or two, but if I err, it is on the side favoring SCO), JFS & XFS don't really offer much in the way of performance over EXT3 or Reiser4...
So WHAT THE @!#$ does SCO make claims to that actually matters for all but the most obscure of cases?
And, having released "Ancient UNIX" under BSD, it's easy to argue that a reasonably competent peanut could have used that code, and adapted it to modern usage -- and was not actually copied.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
The antics of these corporate kingpins are getting pathetic and laughable. But they are serious. Just becasue it's not as much money as Enron doesn't mean the fraud, lies, and manipulation of the stock market aren't just as illegal.
I hope someone is documenting (with suitable domain name: www.SCO-fraud.org) and tracking all the letters and corporate statements they are making (digital voice recording of their statements during their "road show" will be useful and revealing I am sure).
The state of Utah (SCO HQ) and or other jurisdictions should be charging the company with public mischief and fraud: if not now then some time in the future.
Like everyone here, I don't believe that there is a case. I could care less if IBM breached a contract with SCO: it won't affect free software once the infringments (if they exist) are released to be fixed. In any decision, I cannot fathom a scenario where SCO will be allowed to "win" in their battle against Linux.
Likewise, I also agree that the SCO execs are "pumping and dumping". Whether they will get away with it or not, time will tell.
But I think that the main source who is pulling the strings has GOT to be Microsoft. They have figured out that throwing FUD at Linux has not, and likely will never, help. Plus their lawyers have examined the GPL and likely come to the conclusion that it is completely unassailable.
Linux has been making steady progress and slowly taking market share from Microsoft. This comes at a time when MS has to start charging more for their products in order to grow revenues (since they have essentially no room to grow in terms of customers) and when they have virtually no new products of note ready for release in the next couple of years! This is a prime time for customers to look into Linux adoption.
How can MS stem the tide? They can't start directly hurling the legal scare tactics (probably get even Ashcroft looking at them in disapproval for that), so they quietly get the SCO execs on board, and get them to do their dirty work for them? Anyone think this is plausable?
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
Results for google search:
"linux is full of crap".......... 0 hits
"apple is full of crap"......... 0 hits
"microsoft is full of crap".... 9 hits
"toilet is full of crap".......... 2 hits
"SCO is full of crap".......... 92 hits!
So it's official, SCO is 46 times more full of crap crap than a toilets are.
Good faith.
/. lawyers out there: How exactly do we go about filing a class-action lawsuit against SCO? I was debating filing a small-claims case against them, as a linux user, for extortion, and if they show up, great, we'll get to see the code finally, and if not, then I win and get the article slashdotted (Not to mention I get a good $500 or so spending cash at the expense of our good friend Darl).
If they do things without any of SCO's help in an effort to show that they don't WANT to have this happen, they do everything in their power to help alleviate the situation and as such cut SCO's losses. Something SCO was supposed to do in the first place (called Mitigating your Losses).
SCO is being stupid. SGI mitigates their losses for them and SCO tells them it's not enough. THEN DO IT YOURSELF ALREADY! They're complaining like little 5 year olds who have dropped their ice cream cone. Someone buys them a new one and they complain that they wanted THE FIRST one.
Well tough shit. So far SCO has a fantastic case:
- Code they're not willing to point out to the public, but yet is going to be submitted as public evidence anyways, because otherwise they have ZERO case.
- SGI acts of good faith to help mitigate losses that are met with "NOT ENOUGH!"
- A plethora of public statements that contradict each other.
- Accusing all Linux Users of violating their IP without a single shred of proof thus far.
- Examples of code they've backpedalled and said more recently that they weren't examples of code they were talking specifically about. Especially since that code was proven, even though it was in System V, was NOT copywrited or owned by SCO at ALL.
All this is building a bigger and bigger case such that SCO is going to have a shitload of answering to do and that they stand no chance of making ANY money off of these lawsuits... and the only places they're going to make money are (do do do DOO) extortion.
So, a question for any
How plausible is this? I'm serious here. It's about time that we as such a large community (How many hits does slashdot get in a day?) take some action and show that corporate bullying is not a plausible tactic. We need to make SCO fall and fall HARD for their crimes THIS QUARTER before Darl gets praised for two back-to-back positive quarters and then sells all his stock just in time to watch SCO fall in a blaze from his kushy $500,000 summer home in Maine.
So, do I or anybody else have a case? Lawyers, please.... there's probably a good dot-com-like-boom to be had out of this for at least a couple months.
Karma: Non-Heinous
This interview with Chris Sontag in Byte Magazine, most likely.
SCO basically believes they own every OS ever written and that ever will be written.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
In addition to outlasting the murder trial of O. J. Simpson, the trial of SCO vs. Linux Allies will be far more complicated and cost millions of dollars in expert witnesses.
In the trial of O. J. Simpson, the issue was simple. Did Simpson have a motive to kill his wife and did he kill his wife?
In the SCO trial, we are dealing with subtle technical issues and shades of gray. How does one define "minor amendment"? Certainly, no one on the jury will have a clue. The only exposure that an average American has to an operating system (OS) is the color pictures representing icons in Windows. She has no knowledge of kernel-level code.
What will happen is that SCO, IBM, and (apparently now) SGI will subpoena expert witnesses to support or refute the claim that something is a "minor amendment" to the kernel code, but the jury will be dazed as it tries to figure out who is telling the truth on something that the juror has no knowledge. The professors at Carnegie-Mellon University will earn a small bundle of money in serving as expert witnesses in the geek equivalent of the "trial of the century". The court itself will need to hire computer-science professors to explain the intricate details of how an OS works.
Above all, you will see bearded and balding 50-year-old programmers waxing nostalgic about the parts of UNIX that they coded.
msft isn't shoveling millions of dollars to scox for nothing. Darl needs two more profitable quarters before his 600,000 options vest.
Dear Mr. Darl McBride,
Your position: "If there is even a single line of code copied from SysV to Linux via SGI, SCO is entitled to billions of dollars from SGI. Furthermore, IBM must also pay billions of dollars even though they did no copying. Finally, those who used this code in good faith must pay a substantial run-time only licensing fee to SCO even after the code is completely removed."
My position: "You're the fucking moron."
I really believe SCO is going to get squashed in court, but it's always possible that our ridiculous court system will let this shit fly.
It's ridiculous that SCO is still allowed to continue this nonsense considering the obvious insider trading going on, etc.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Yes. One might be tempted to call it "excessive" due diligence, but that will not hurt when it finally goes to trial, if ever.
Which brings up the question, does SGI even *have* enough cash on hand to make them worth suing? Given SGI's reliance on government contracts, would any federal agencies be willing to file an amicus brief on SGI's behalf, supporting SGI's contentions on the basis of its mitigatory actions and the government's reliance on some SGI systems?
Perhaps SGI's "excessive" mitigatory actions are a necessary prelude to garnering support for their case from other quarters.
Frankly, I can't understand why SCO would pursue this into court at this point in time. One can argue that a taking on a cash-poor defendant could give SCO an easy win to set precedent for the IBM suit, but for that reasoning to work, SCO should have sued SGI first. There's no chance now that a suit brought against SGI could be decided before the IBM case.
Putting SGI out of business doesn't do SCO any good. SCO won't be able to further develop SGI's business and technology even if they were able to claim the assets. Nor does it do SGI's customers any good to have SGI's products made obsolete - even more quickly than is already occurring - by a SCO management more interested in litigation than technological development.
The only possibility I can see for SCO getting anything out of this is if they hope to force SGI into a settlement. It may be that SCO is just looking for a quick 10 or 20 million to finance the IBM suit, and would settle with SGI for that little. It would also have the added benefit of scoring another profitable quarter for Darl, if settled quickly enough. SCO may find, however, that even SGI's competitors would be willing to pick up the legal tab before letting SCO win a penny out of this.
It actually hasn't been declared public domain, yet, but if taken to court, it probably would be. The code is part of the same code base that the judge in the BSD case said ATT probably wouldn't be able to protect. It's also been include as an example in a number of basic C programming manuals, including Kerighan & Ritchie.
So while it's not *literally* public domain, it's unlikely that the code samples provided by SCO so far would survive a public domain challenge.
In any event, the code was definitely released as part of Caldera's "ancient Unix" distribution under a "BSD-like" license, which means it could be used in open source or proprietary projects as long as the copyrights were maintained.
In the unlikely case that a public domain challenge did not hold up, SGI *might* be slightly vulnerable on this point, but it is also the kind of trivial mistake that is supposed to be capable of mitigation by re-inserting the copyrights. The courts probably wouldn't look to kindly on SCO for denying SGI that privilege.
The argument that it is difficult to make a derivative work of GPL code, where the derivative work includes proprietary code that is integrated with the GPL code. Can't release it under the GPL, it's proprietary code, but Linux _needs_ UNIX, so the only way to do this is get rid of the GPL for the good of Linux.
SGI wants to contribute XFS to Linux, or perhaps any other OS that is interested. They are doing this for everyone's benefit. If I understand it correctly, SCO is saying that SGI cannot do that, no matter what. Even if there is no actual SVR4 code in XFS, it's because SGI is a UNIX licensee, and therefore they cannot open source anything that they use to make the SVR4 UNIX essentials that they license from SCO better. It's controversial, but SCO knows that.
But from another angle, SVR4 has a monopoly of sorts when it comes to UNIX compliant OS'es. Even so, if they are saying that you cannot simultaneously license UNIX code from them, and open source code that you, and only you, as the licensee, wrote to improve and extend the functionality of those UNIX essentials that you license from SCO, then what SCO is really doing, if they get their way, is that they are making SVR4 a kind of Medusa, or a poison oak, or something.
Isn't there a chance that those who want to continue using the GPL, and contributing to open source, will not want to have anything to do with SCO or UNIX SVR4?
If SCO can prove their point in court, no one is going to want to touch SVR4 with a ten foot pole!
Linux is still going to become the OS of choice, no matter how much re-coding is necessary, if any, that is... And if SVR4 won't play nice with it, there will be consequences.
Or maybe not... there is no way to speculate what will take place when all these issues go to court.
One thing that I am confident in saying is that XFS is an excellent file system, and even if it weren't available free of charge, it would be worth some money to have a file system like that.
You may be right, but I doubt it, unless you mean the set of code forming the intersection of BSD's and ATT's code bases.
I can't believe that the UC Board of Regents would make *all* of their code to that point public domain. Also, if the rumors regarding the settlement are true, ATT was required to insert proper UC copyright notices in something like 70 routines.
Since the settlement is closed, we can't really verify your assertion unless you are someone who was privy to the terms or can post a reference where it can be verified.
Actually it does, copyright law, as of the 90's on, has a clear distiction between the severity of intentional and accidental infringement. See Religious Technology Center v. Netcom. Oh, since the code was in the public domain, it can not be copyrighted. See the note below for what public domain is. Works that contain public domain material can be copyrighted; but, the public domain material itself remains free to all. So, no SGI did not violate SCO's copyright.
"2. It doesn't matter how much code it was. SGI violated SCO's copyright."
Actually it does. Even if the code was not in the public domain and the code was SCO's to begin with, the use of small parts of other people's copyrighted works in ones own work has been established as legel in several copyright cases since the United States of America was formed. See Maxtone-Graham v. Burtchaell. So, no SGI did not violate SCO's copyright.
"3. It doesn't matter if they've stopped doing it or not. SGI violated SCO's copyright."
Actually, such an attempt to remedy any potential problems on their part puts them in a very good legal position. And anyway, SGI did not violate SCO's copyright in the first place.
"SGI is gonna take it in the shorts over this one. Seen their latest 10-K? SCO's gonna put them out of business for good."
No doubt there. Sueing anything that annoys you into oblivion seems to be a sound business tactic nowadays.
"Linux is already dead. It'll be a shame to lose IRIX, too."
Thats funny, it seems to be alive and well on my PC. And I have several friends who use it as well. And, no, not as a dual boot setup either. No, you can't have their info so you can send them invoices Mr. SCO Boi.
Public Domain:
Work Consulted: Copyright Timeline
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Errr, since the code was released under the GPL without SCO's permission, yes - either pony up or stop using XFS.
No, technically, if SGI released it and it was SCO's code, then its not GPL because they didn't have the legal authority (copyright) to release it under any license. It has to be "recalled" so to speak, meaning removed and SGI would be liable for any real damages.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Finding reasonable sane logic in SCO's actions is often challenging... but in this case they are probably really trying to help their IBM case. They are trying to portray wide-scale "stealing" of their "intellectual property"; no matter how contrived the example is, they are just trying to show well-known big computer companies that are supposedly feeding Linux developers with stolen goods. Knowing how little real evidence SCO has I guess they must try to bring in all cases for which they think they have anything resembling evidence... and this just shows how desperate they are.
Thus, from their point of view SGI probably is more collateral damage, small fry, whatever you want to call it, and IBM (plus other wealthy Linux-using co's) is the main target.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
OK, so maybe I shouldn't have split this into two pieces..... neither half really makes sense without the other.
What I was trying to point out is that SCO's apparent tactic is rather like the parsley, sage, Rosemary and Thyme thing. Examined, each piece by itself, it almost makes sense -- but not quite. The "then she'll be a true love of mine" is analogous to SCO's admonitions to the Linux community to "doesn't cure the breach". However, like the lover's call to do things like make him a Cambric shirt (apparently a patch-quilt design) "with never a seam, nor needle work), The job is all but impossible.
Even more sinister than that, I'm now convinced that SCO really has no proof of copyright or patent violation -- nor do they any longer have the expertise to even attempt to find such violations if they existed. What they've done instead is to throw the gauntlet down to the Open Source community and challenge us to find any possible breaches ourselves. -- and should we ever find such a substantial breach, SCO would probably use thatas their proof of breach.
Given that the open source community has failed to find any substantive proof of violation and that SCO's only proof so far have turned out to be public domain on one hand and possible proof that thy have (once again) violated the BSD copyright on the other, I think that it's time that we stopped doing their legal research for them and challenged them back.
The Open Source community has a responsibility (morally, if not legally) to investigate any real accusation of copyright violation (with file names line numbers and annotations) and correct any allegation found to have substance. SCO, on the other hand, has dramatically failed to provide such an allegation, and so we should now treat their unsubstantiated rantings as precisely what we've determined them to be -- spectacular garbage. If they should ever provide anything substantive, then we should respond to it appropriately.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Nope. As far as we know, not a line; nothing, nada. SCO never claimed it did either.
Considering this, the rest of your argument that stems from this.
What SCO claims is that since XFS was originally put into a system that was derived from UNIX, and they own the rights to Unix, then XFS is bound to the UNIX license, which prevents sharing that code with anyone else who hasn't paid for a UNIX license. But XFS is a totally independent SGI creation which contains no non-free UNIX code as far as we know.
They're essentially claiming that XFS is a derivative work of UNIX since it was created to be put into Irix, a UNIX derivative OS. Which is ridiculous by any interpretation of property law or the UNIX license. It's as if the car lending company claimed ownership of your trailer because you used their car to pull it. They might sue you for damages to the car if you weren't allowed to do it, but they can't claim that the trailer is theirs.
What SGI actually did was to put some UNIX code in other portions of Linux (unrelated to XFS). That code was public domain or under a free license but was attributed to SGI instead of to the actual copyright holder. They removed those bits and are checking to make sure there aren't any others.
They could sue the person/company who put that code in there and force them to remove it. The company in question would then notify the code-keepers it was illegally put there, it would be removed and possibly have to be replaced, but there is NO LEGAL BASIS for making anyone else pay for damages other than the person who did the actual infringement of releasing the code, which is why everyone thinks the "SCO Linux license" is a piece of shit and means absolutely nothing. It's a racket, nothing else, and if they actually DID sell even one of them they could be sued under the RICO act for racketeering.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
Bzzt! It has not been proven at all that the code was infringing. SGI removed it because it posed a potential problem. And really, they said it was maybe 200 lines in millions of lines of code--and it was not essential code. That hardly makes a case for serious damage awards to SCO. Those 200 lines of code can hardly have been the linchpin holding together the rest of the OS, in either the case of Linux, or in the case of whatever Unix it is SCO claims to hold rights to. I fail to see how that code therefore impedes the market for the original in any meaningful way. You forget that copyright is not an absolute right, Fair Use allows for many exceptions.
And in this case, I'd say 200 lines almost sounds like a mistake more than an intentional pattern of abuse. But to award some damages, how about 200 dollars for every 1,000,000 dollars that SGI made off the products that included this code-- that would be proportional to the value added by this code. So, max, SCO makes a few thousand dollars. Big win.
I do not have a signature