Slashdot Mirror
More Damning SCO Evidence At Groklaw
An anonymous reader writes "There's a very interesting story up at Groklaw right now. PJ reports on new evidence that Chris Hellwig, a SCO employee, contributed code to SMP, XFS, and JFS and did so with the knowledge of his supervisor." Groklaw is thorough, and this is another good example of just quite how thorough.
If this is true and is proven to be true, heads will roll, namely SCO's.
After all this, I can't believe that this has come out, it doesn't surprise me in this day and age of sleazy business tactics, but this is really low. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I hope the FBI, DoJ and Stock Exachange Commission get involved now as it looks like pumpndump, Fraud, extortion, and slander to me.
"You're on my side and the dark side, like Lando Calrissian?" --Gimpy, Undergrads
I don't think I'm the only person thinking this: what if SCO planted their code in Linux? Maybe they were planning this all along.
Occam's Razor for conspiracy theorists suggests that one should never ascribe to conspiracy what can be ascribed to incompetence. SCO/Caldera submtted a bunch of code to the Linux kernel. Much later, Darl and company come along, see code in the Linux kernel that matches code they have copyright, and without a clue about what they are doing, thing that they've found a goldmine.
Assuredly SCO has given ample evidece of being blindingly incompetent in the past, such that sheer incompetence is hands-down the most plausible explanation here.
-Rob
The can hardly do that. They were quite proud of it at the time.
That of course was a different company. The name is the same, but it is otherwise not the same corporate entity.
sigs are a waste of space
Any judge who believes a company that suddenly claims ignorance after years of marketing Linux under the GPL, unlimited access to Linux source-code, and now proof of Linux code submissions, should have his financials investigated just to be sure his rulings don't return a profit.
= 9J =
it makes me wonder how they thought they were going to win in the first place
I don't really think they had much of a chance to begin with, but because of economic downturns they decided they wouldn't be going down without a fight, or at least a gasping, death-throw-like struggle... like waving your arms and legs when you're falling off a cliff. It won't help you at all, but hey- why not? Unfortunatley, they decided to fight the bad fight.
Despite all this, I agree with your position of our survival wholeheartedly. Because of the diversity of contributors, Open Source is like sand- they can try to scoop it up all they want, but it'll just slip through their fingers.
Esoteric reference.
Since they have always refused to provide evidence, the general theory has been that their entire plan from the beginning was to pump and dump their stock, not to win a lawsuit.
Of course, there is lot of evidence against SCO and they will lose their case. But the fact is, even they know it. This whole SCO suit is all about keeping Linux from rapid adoption using FUD and legal tactics. With this strategy, Microsoft and allies have found a way to keep Linux away from the mainstream adopters. What's to stop Micosoft from using another puppet after SCO has lost it's case ? They've got enough money to throw around and huge incentive to do it.
SCO losing the case won't change anything. It's quite easy to bring up another entirely different legal issue concerning Linux and use FUD and media to publicize it. It takes at least 2 years to resolve such a case and Linux adoption will be affected for that period. Whoever said Microsoft has no answer to the Linux movement is merely ignorant, IMHO. Microsoft has laid out the tactics and played the first move. They are taking advantage of the weaknesses in the judicial system to keep legal issues concerning Linux afloat for a long time. What shoud the community do against these dirty tricks ?
Redhat's fund towards fighting future legal challenges is a step in the right direction. What we need is some way to certify Linux as free from copyright infringements and patent issues. A consortium (a division of OSDL, may be) can be formed to exclusively monitor the legal aspects of Linux Development process. A request for copyrights of all the code gone into the Linux kernel can pre-empt further copyright infringement lawsuits. I am not sure about the practicality of these steps, but we need to develop a sense of trust in the minds of mainstream adopters about the linux development process and other legal issues. Feel free to toss in your ideas.
getSexySig();
Just because its a 'supervisor' doesn't mean the legal department sanctioned the 'code release'.
,etc.. I'm talking 'employees' here, regardless of position )
Unless you get specific permission from the actual 'company', the actions of any individual can still be considered improper. ( excluding the board, or CEO
---- Booth was a patriot ----
And of course, you all convieniently ignore IBM's counter suit which includes patent violations for stuff the slashdot crowd would ordinarily claim were "obvious".
I'll bite
You are forgetting the fact that these patents were not enforced until SCO picked the fight. Also SCO never asked for clarification, they just filed suit. IBM probly has some hideous patents hidden in its massive fortress of leagal solitude. I feel no remose for the kid punces the 800lb gorilla in the face, and then claims to be the victm when he gets his ass kicked.
As for Communisim, since when is doing your own thing communism, I like, enjoy and profit from open source software. In a way it is the Nash Equilibrium, in which we do not only what is best for us, but also what is best for the group. Now this is decidedly not communistic, its enlightened self intrest. After all its free as in freedom, do you horde your speech?
I am done, so why don't you take your troll energy and post some goatse links.
Did Glenn Beck rape and kill a girl in 1990? gb1990.com
Once the Groklaw site is no longer slashdotted go there and look at the discussion about Mr. Hellwig
He was not a peon and his boss was in charge of a couple of programs that SCO publicly supported. Like LSB.
That being said all the code writes to some extend are peons, but that does not mean SCO managements are not responsible
Lastly they will have an impossible task claiming that their peons are different from IBM's peons.
If SCO is not responsible neither is IBM. If works both ways.
Help fight continental drift.
> That of course was a different company. The name is the same, but it is otherwise not the same corporate entity.
Yeah, one of the more curious side effects of our IP and corporate laws is that you can buy dead or dying companies and then sue someone as if the damage had been done to you. You can essentially buy the damage; I'm surprised damage isn't being traded in the futures markets.[*]
And it's too bad I can't go down to the retirement home, buy up a bunch of people dying from lung cancer, and then sue the tobacco companies. I need some cash for a new 64-bit computer.
[*] Of course, IMO it's equally odd that you can buy or sell liabilities just as you can damages. When you step back and look at things as they are, it sometimes seems that we live in Bizarro World.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
>Doesn't matter what employees do, it's a question of whether the top executive know
BEEP. No Soup for YOU!
Any employee of a company can be an "Authorized Agent", or in common language a representative. This responibility is handed out by giving you:
A phone with direct dial.
A business card.
A paycheck that covers time spent outside the building (and not sick or on vacation.)
Permission to speak to non-employees during business hours.
And many more trivial type things.
Anything a company lets you do is your job and their problem. Thats why corporate manuals are always thick books.
And laywers get rich.
Sadly, they still might have a contract case against IBM they can win. If by some miracle they win that and don't get the case dismissed due to their pretrial antics, that will be bad news for Linux. The public sees SCO in a copyright suit, if they win the suit, the public will think Linux has a copyright problem. That will take a huge effort to correct the mistaken view of millions.
Which is to say, couldn't they conceivably claim issues with JCS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP code that's simply separate from what their boy Hellig was working near?
I realize that either way their argument is crap but it, if they are going to pull something like that, it's crap that they can still, albeit insultingly, disingenuously, and vexatiously, hold onto their claims and simply fail to admit what obvious liars they are?
Just wondering.
Sure, you can buy a dead or dying company and sue as if the damage had been done to you, but...
You just bought the company, and not only do you get the parts you wanted, you get the other parts, too. Just ask look into buying former/current property used for dry cleaning. Simpler yet, buy property with asbestos insulation.
Perhaps the new SCO bought the old SCOs damage, but they also bought the old SCOs actions wrt Open Source, including Christoph Hellwig's contributions, and all the implications thereof.
My other hope in this current chunk of mess, aside from SCO getting what it deserves, is that Hellwig doesn't suffer for any of this. Not to neglect the rest of the Open Source community, but it may well end up with Hellwig being at the eye of the storm.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Between Caldera and old-SCO, there were nearly a dozen programmers than contributed to the Linux kernel, and are acknowledged in various CREDITS files in the source. As is a senior level manager who not only knew about Chris's work, but encouraged it.
Further, given that Caldera's marketing department was touting some of the features (SMP, JFS, etc) in their literature (for their Linux distro), SCOX (nee Caldera) has no way at all to convincingly argue that this was not authorized or not known about.
SCO's toast.
-- Alastair
IANAL (did you forget YOUR IANAL?), but I know that if a delivery boy were to crash into my car, during his delivery, I could not only sue him but his company, as well (did the legal department sanction that crash?). I also know that an "x-buyer" for company has the "appearance" of authority for up to 2 years. What does that mean? Even if he doesn't work for the company anymore, he can still order from suppliers and the company will be liable. The company has to notify each supplier or public announce the guy no longer works there. The law doesn't care what GOES INSIDE THE COMPANY. The law cares about what appears to be the situation to your average reasonable individual. Employees are the "agents" of the company. Though their scope is "narrow", if they act within the scope of their employment, it is as if the company is acting, itself. Legal department != company. Otherwise, the legal department would just go on break, and the company would never be liable for anything . . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
And if that was the argument being made you might have a point. But the article provides proof that SCO employees, operating under their manager's authority, put the code in question into Linux. This is not merely a distribution, but a contribution.
...the only thing we have to fear from the whole sco debacle is discouragement...
Let me nominate distraction as the biggest risk. Whenever one has had to circle the wagons, the resumed journey is never the same. A wonderful model of meritocracy may be forever changed into a quasi corporate structure -- at the extreme, leading to a world where Legal has to vet everything before its release.
This needn't be a negative, just acknowledgement that linux must evolve in an unexpected way, in order to survive and prosper in this unexpected New World. Still, I shed a tear.
"Inquiring Minds Want to Know!"
Thing the first, contracts do not have to be "signed" only "agreed to", a signature is only and singularly prima-facia evidence of agreement, not some magic fairy-dust of holy cannon with powers obscure and sublime.
Thing the second, the contract is right there for you to read, it is called the "General Public License".
The prima-facia evidence of agreement is, in fact, the act of distribution. The only legal way to distribute a work governed(*) by the GPL is to agree to the GPL.
If it(+) is not evidence of agreement, then it is INSTANTLY and UNARGUABLY prima-facia evidence of copyright infringement. Remember the whole $150,000 each instance penalty and all that?
This isn't rocket science here. Either they had express individual permission to distribute the material from ALL the authors, OR they agreed to the GPL, OR they are copyright thieves. There is no fourth choice with respect to this body of code.
(*) re "governed by the GPL". I can have a body of code (art) and give it to different people with different agreements and understandings attached to each separate transaction. Nothing magically lets one provanance [historical path of possession] jump the curb into another, even if the two pass eachother on the same network adaptor. If SCO *GOT* the material under the GPL, and didn't go back and re-get it under some other more invested agreement with each author (really the holder(s) of copyrights) then they can only distribute it in turn under the rules and restrictions placed on them by the provanance, namely the GPL.
(+) "it" being, "taking the code (art) contributed (and hence, who's copyright is owned/held) by parties other than the distributor".
So if they got it ONLY by GPL they may ONLY pass it on by GPL.
Period.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I don't think it would even matter if they could claim "that's not really us". If some previous holder of the SysV source code rights knowingly contributed their "derivative works" (JFS, NUMA, etc.) under the GPL, the game is up -- whether that is the same company as today's holder or not.
SCO's case was never based on fact, they were using litigation as a business tool. A republican behavior becoming all too popular these days. And what's the downside? DirecTV sues the innocent along with the guilty and who's stopping them? And don't get me started on RIAA. And when it comes to fraud look at Enron, WorldCom and Putman. Millions of people bilked out of billions of dollars and how many have gone to jail? Three or four? McBride's playing the odds that even if the ploy doesn't work...and it's safe to say it's probably not going like they hoped...the company was dead anyway and their chances of facing any serious prison time were slim to none. When government is in the pocket of big business lobbyists, this is the reality. Welcome to Bush World.
Let's not take anything away from the outstanding research from Groklaw, though. That's really good work by someone there.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Sorry, blew the post...
The details of the contract from the GPL which govern are encompased in the following:
1) That SCO did receive the Linux kernel under the GPL.
2) That SCO did either modify existing code or add additional code to that kernel.
3) That SCO did gather those modifications together, thus creating a derrivative work
4) That SCO did then distribute that derrivative work either:
4a) as a compostite work under the GPL as requrired by their inclusion of the GPLed code they did not create themselves
OR
4b) in direct and deliberate contravention of the governing agreement (the GPL) and thus in violation of US and International copyright law.
5) That SCO did, through the actions of their employee(s), also directly submit many/some/all of those modifictions to the central management facilities of the Linux kernel, with the understanding that accpetance of such submission was prima-facia evidence of agreement to allow others to distribute those changes under the GPL.
In the case of 4a and 5, separately and taken togher, SCO needs must have put at least one chain of provenance of that code under the terms of the GPL
In the case of 4b SCO has spesifically and directly broken the law and may be held liable before a civil (or ciriminal in the DMCA age) court.
In no case is SCO stripped of their ability to separately distribute their WHOLLY ORIGINAL code (art) under any ADDITIONAL terms they wish, establishing a separate entitiy and provanance for such further distribution.
They MAY NOT, however, "take back" the GPLed provanance because they spesifically waived that right when they established that provanance.
They also MAY NOT separately distribute under new/separate/other provinance any elements (art) of their manufacture which are not themselves WHOLLY ORIGINAL.
The last is the fine point that makes some people barf up FUD so easily. If I sit down with a clean editor and make (say) a serial driver module that can be linked to the Linux kernel, I may keep it to myself, distribute it under GPL, or distribute it (separate from the kernel) under any other termis I choose. In fact I may do ALL THREE at the same time. The blank editor (and presuming the absence of significant copying) creates a "new work" with no provanance.
If I start with the *EXISTING* linux kernel serial driver, then I may keep it to myself or distributed it under the GPL, but I *MAY *NOT* distribute it under other terms I choose. The original work retains its provinance, and so its legal standing within my new work.
This is no more different than writing a novel. If you write a novel from scratch it is yours. If you write by simply editing my novel it is still mine even though it is also now kind of yours.
The only grey area comes when you write a new novel on a blank page, by reading all of my work, and then basing "significant" portions of your novel on the characters and situations that you harvested out of my work. [This being why you, for instance, cant write (and expect to publish with impunity) your own "Star Trek" novel without the permission of Paramount, who owns "Star Trek" just now.]
This is not that hard people... 8-)
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press