Slashdot Mirror
OSDL Releases New Paper on SCO's Claims
Ridgelift writes "The Open Source Development Labs have released a paper entitled SCO: Without Fear and Without Research [PDF, HTML version at the FSF] where Eben Moglen debunks SCO's claims to copyright infringement, and also discusses how they contradict themselves by citing that the GPL is both invalid and provides them legal protection. More information at the OSDL site and via an Internet.com article."
SCO claim that there's a non compete clause in their contract with Novell, and hence, Novell may not compete with SCO.
Now, I don't see Novell running around like a madman shitting in their own bathwater and suing everyone who says "boo". Clear evidence that Novell is in no way competing with SCO's core business.
From Gartner's comments last week, it becomes clear that SCO's claims, press-releases and lawsuits are damaging the adoption of Linux, in the short-term, in corporate environments. I believe that is, partially, what RedHat's case against SCO is about.
So when do we expect that axe to fall? With the IBM case going into Oral arguments next month? Is there not anyway that this process can be accelerated by one of the judges, so that this hideous trainwreck can be put to bed.
Though Slashdot may not have anything to publish if there wan't a faily SCO story.
The article is a good summary for those of you tuning in late, or if you are perhaps a bit confused by the whole mess. Like the majority of the SCO news of late, it merely rehashes the situation, but it does provide a clearly articulated dissection of SCO's crack-induced legal arguments.
On the count of three, everybody make the obligatory SCO and/or Darl McBride is insane/Satan/Microsoft's toady comments. Ready? 1, 2, . . .
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
OSDL PDF/FSF HTML RPT WRT SCO GPL FUD
John.
The rest of this text is because the Slashdot lameness filter thinks that I am shouting which in fact I am now because the lameness filter is lame.
What better title can you have than that? I mean, it speaks soo deeply of SCO's stratgies. Without Fear seems to stand for SCO's complete lack of healthy fear that keeps one from doing something fscking stupid, and I think that Without Research speaks for itself. It takes talent to come up with a title that grabs one like that. I know it seems silly to put so much focus on a title- I know "you can't judge a book by its cover," but people do it, and it's good to be able to take advantage of that. Kudos to the authors.
#define DRM chmod 000
SCO: Without Fear and Without Research
Eben Moglen
Monday 24 November 2003
There's a traditional definition of a shyster: a lawyer who, when the law is against him, pounds on the facts; when the facts are against him, pounds on the law; and when both the facts and the law are against him, pounds on the table. The SCO Group's continuing attempts to increase its market value at the expense of free software developers, distributors and users through outlandish legal theories and unsubstantiated factual claims show that the old saying hasn't lost its relevance.
Just The Facts
SCO continues to claim in public statements about its lawsuit against IBM that it can show infringement of its copyrights in Unix Sys V source code by the free software operating system kernel called Linux. But on the one occasion when SCO has publicly shown what it claimed were examples of code from Linux taken from Unix Sys V, its demonstration backfired, showing instead SCO's cavalier attitude toward copyright law and its even greater sloppiness at factual research.
On August 18, 2003, SCO's CEO, Darl McBride, offered a slide presentation of supposed examples of infringing literal copying from Sys V to Linux at a public speech in Las Vegas. Within hours the free software and open source communities had analyzed SCO's supposed best evidence, and the results were not encouraging for those investors and others who hope SCO knows what it is talking about.[1]
In Las Vegas Mr. McBride offered two examples of code from the Linux program that were supposedly copied from Sys V. The first implements the "Berkeley Packet Filter" (BPF) firewall. Indeed, the Linux kernel program contains a BPF implementation, but it is the original work of Linux developer Jay Schulist. Nor did SCO ever hold an ownership interest in the original BPF implementation, which as the very name shows was originally part of BSD Unix, and which was copied, perfectly legally, into SCO's Sys V Unix from BSD. Because the BPF implementations in Sys V and Linux have a common intellectual ancestor and perform the same function, SCO's "pattern-matching" search of the two code bases turned up an apparent example of copying. But SCO didn't do enough research to realize that the work they were claiming was infringed wasn't their own (probably because they had "carelessly" removed the original copyright notice).
Mr. McBride's second example was only slightly less unconvincing. Mr McBride showed several dozen lines of memory allocation code from "Linux," which was identical to code from Sys V. Once again, however, it turned out that SCO had relied on "pattern-matching" in the source code without ascertaining the actual history and copyright status of the work as to which it claimed ownership and infringement. The C code shown in the slides was first incorporated in Unix Version 3, and was written in 1973; it descends from an earlier version published by Donald Knuth in his classic The Art of Computer Programming in 1968. AT&T claimed this code, among other portions of its Unix OS, as infringed by the University of California in the BSD litigation, and was denied a preliminary injunction on the ground that it could not show a likelihood of success on its copyright claim, because it had published the code without copyright notices and therefore, under pre-1976 US copyright law, had put the code in the public domain. In 2002, SCO's predecessor Caldera released this code again under a license that permitted free copying and redistribution. Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI) then used the code in the variant of the Linux program for "Trillium" 64-bit architecture computers it was planning to sell but never shipped. In incorporating the code, SGI violated the terms of Caldera's license by erroneously removing Caldera's (incorrect) copyright notice.
Thus SCO's second example was of supposedly impermissible copying of code that was in the public domain to begin with, and which SCO itself had released under a free software license after erroneou
Personally, I'm hoping most of the "Where are they now?" stories 5 years from now will contain some mention of a Federal Penitentery.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
There is no non-compete clause. There is some fairly limited language in regard to Novell not selling or providing monetary incentives to its salespeople with respect to System V, but even that clause is rendered inoperative due to a Change of Control clause that went into effect when Caldera purchased the Unix assets from Old SCO (now Tarantella).
Welcome to the new diocese, Father. These upstanding lads are the choir...
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
Hey, did I miss some bad news for SCO? SCO stock jumped from 14$ to 16$.
You don't find SCO's claims that copyright law supports their claims, but at the same time copyright law does not support the GPL, to be prima facia evidence of a cavalier attitude? Look Darl, you can't have it both ways. That's what the article is trying to point out.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Quoting the paper posted in the original article: "Unless SCO can show that the GPL is
a valid form of permission, and that it has never violated that permission's
terms, it loses the counterclaim, and should be answerable in damages not
only to IBM but to all kernel contributors."
Could this eventually be used to force SCO to pay kernel contributors because SCO was in fact infringing on their GPL'ed code?
Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementia (There is no great genius without a mixture of madness) - Aristotle
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My take on this is that (hopefully) just that will happen.
I think in the beginning, SCO looked at code, at what they owned (or thought they did) and saw many similarities and indeed identical parts with the next most popular OS, Linux. Instantly the idea of litigation entered their heads, and they proceeded without checking much further
Now, piece by piece their case has crumbled, and THEY KNOW IT. they can't NOT know it. They can't look at code they said was indicative of copying by linux but was proven to all be open and not know it. They can't look back at their own release of Linux under GPL and not know it. They can't look back at their release of older UNIX code under a BSD license and not know it. These are adults, they're not complete morons in that manner. They thought they had a case they could win, and they went ahead with pursuing it.
Oh they know for sure that their claim to code in Linux is tenuous, they're smart enough to know that. What they're failing to see is that there is a point, when you're losing, that you decide to call it a day, stop, see your mistakes and move on from them having learnt something.
Pressing ahead without fear indeed.
Curiously, what was Darl McBride and co up to BEFORE all this happened? what was his job? what kind of risks/payoffs did he work with before? perhaps that could give insight as to why they're not going "Oh fuck we're screwed, let's stop", but instead going "Oh fuck we're screwed, may as well dig deeper!"
This is also being discussed over at Groklaw, which any of you who still are reading Caldera stories should know about by now...
Bearing in mind that the Boston Tea Party was a protest by tea smugglers against the lifting of taxes on tea imports by the British, I imagine American history will record the SCO fiasco as a triumph of one man's will against hordes of unwashed code thieves.
[Black Field]
VOICE OVER: In a time of copyright theft, one man stood against the tide...
[Crossfade montage: DARL MCBRIDE in meetings with lawyers]
VO: One man prepared to fight the ultimate menace to American society...
[Crossfade to OSAMA BIN LADEN wearing LINUX t-shirt, sitting at computer, laughing uncontrollably]
VO: To gather the bravest and strongest...
[Cut to D BOIES picking his nose]
VO: To fight the greatest threat America has...
[Cut to disfigured mutants with IBM and SGI face tattoos eating babies, burning the flag, contemplating gay marriage, etc]
Graphics: SCO VERSUS THE COMMUNIST THIEVES
VO: In theaters this Summer
Graphics / SFX: Loud thud as huge writ smashes out of screen to POV
He used to work at Novell.
Darl McBride, Vice President and General Manager of Novell's Extended Networks Group, is responsible for engineering, development, and marketing at the company's Monterey, California site. Since 1988, McBride has held numerous senior management positions within Novell;
other industry experience includes assignments with Texas Instruments' Information Systems Group.
He was involved with selling UNIX IP away from Novell when he was with them. He then shifted piece by piece into a prime position at SCO, and suddenly he has control over IP he's worked with for decades. McBride isn't just a newcomer to all of this who saw a quick buck to be made, I believe he's been planning this for a long, long time. 10 years or more. He's sticking with it because to him it's personal.
RST
To what degree is the mainstream media reviewing reports like this recent one from OSDL? If they are, they're certainly not reporting it. It's looking pretty biased to me!
...There's a chance for more "dramatic gains in the SCO stock price"
...The ability to yank one million lines of code out of five million is substantial; Investors seem to believe that SCO's suit has merit
So, to the average investor, SCO's claim that they matched 1 out of 5 million lines of code in Linux is pretty damning evidence.. whereas domain experts like us can easily see through these lies. Hopefully this comes to light in the courts, 'cause people like us are certainly screaming in a vacuum right now!
I'm thinking that the the financial/business media is leaning towards SCO side since SCO represents a more conventional corporate america, and Linux / GPL threatens that model?