Ptraci writes "Over at Groklaw they have been doing some digging and have found evidence that old SCO and Caldera did in fact contribute those files that they now want to charge us for."
Their contribution...
by
Mod+Me+God
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
...was under GPL. They will have to disprove that first, which IMHO is he kernel of the case (other than a last-ditch effort to get bought out which seems to have failed).
-- --
FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
Re:Their contribution...
by
themightythor
·
· Score: 4, Funny
which IMHO is he (sic) kernel of the case
*rimshot. He'll be here all week folks.
Re:Their contribution...
by
jrumney
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The brilliant thing is that Caldera PGP signed the files that they released. So it is going to be extremely hard for SCO to argue that someone else released them, or that they were released by a rogue employee without permission.
Re:Their contribution...
by
Rick+the+Red
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
To what end? The GPL is just the permission slip Linus gives you to use and copy Linux, not ownership of Linux (for example - this applies to all GPL'd code). If the GPL is ruled invalid by a court, all that means is that the license you hold for Linux is invalid. It doesn't invalidate Linus' copyright on the Linux code. Linus would remain free to re-license his code as he sees fit -- this would not grant Microsoft or anyone else the right to use Linus' code without his permission.
-- If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Re:Their contribution...
by
Naikrovek
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
that's what experts are for. the "average" judge doesn't know ballistics either but ballistics is still a science that judges use daily to convict murderers. because a judge doesn't know about a certain type of proof doesn't make it invalid.
Re:Their contribution...
by
sjames
·
· Score: 4, Funny
You can't really expect some PGP thing to hold up in court. Your average judge or juror won't even know what PGP is.
If you can clicking 'agree' is enough to enter into a license, surely a PGP signature will do. Equate the two in court and watch MS legal's heads explode as they side with Linux against SCO:-)
Imagine a beowulf cluster...
by
grayshade
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Imagine a beowulf cluster of... er... I for one welcome our new... uhm... All of your ABI belong... Sh*t!
Future SCO's
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Fair question: What's to prevent any other contributor from pulling a future SCO? Especially when you have a codebse that has such a large number of contributors. And a large variety of licenses.
"If you'll look out the left side of the bus you'll see the smoking Caldera that used to be SCO Group...remember this sight well if ever you contemplate screwing with Open Source..."
And all I can say is that a certain Nancy Sinatra song comes to mind when I think of SCO..
This is going to be FUN...
Where will Groklaw head...
by
4lex
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
when this SCO thing gets to an end?
I appreciate they are doing a very worthy work (and getting the slashdot crowd to a more informed talk about SCO, something necessary because the old jokes are starting to become _really_ old).
I sure would like them to go on when this SCO fiasto bluffs down. The free software world really needs an army of lawyers and paralawyers, if we want to stay long. I only can say "Kudos to you, groklawyers! Go on!"
Re:but of course
by
WindBourne
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Not one of TSCOG claims has ever been proven
In fact, just about everything that they have claimed gets disproved rather quickly via groklaw. While there are a few things left, it only requires for SCO to submit the evidence so that groklaw can look at it.
-- I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Why is the parent moded as flamebait? Isnt that the truth that Groklaw are probably biased against SCO? Groklaw has probably uncovered quite a lot of dirt on SCO that is correct, and I doubt that they lie about anything. But if one has taken sides on an issue, can we trust that the person wont turn a blind eye on some facts? Will he present facts that might not go down to well with his own version and side? I think it is only a fair comment. SCO are probably a bunch of liars, but underestimating and brushing aside an opponent as "nothing" WILL in most cases come back and bite you in the *ss.
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
Zebra_X
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Does it matter? Evidence either proves something, or it doesn't.
I heard that the RIAA stole a lot of proprietary code from SCO, and that people at SCO have been illegally downloading a bunch of Metallica MP3s.
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Actually, it would suffice to say that Groklaw is more interested in finding information that would benefit SCO.
In fact, the entire Linux community is more concerned with finding facts that could help SCO.
Well, alteast they WERE. The simple fact is, SCO has lied and been caught soooo many times over the last few months... all we can do now is wait for them to lie again so we can disprove it.
It's simple, SCO has lied and it's a known fact. They've lied a LOT, made a LOT of false allegations, etc al..
If you bite into a terd, it's going to taste like shit. No amount of suger and spice is going to make it otherwise.
FBI investigates SCO as author of MyDoom virus!!!
by
Cronopios
·
· Score: 4, Informative
According to this article, the FBI has visited SCO, seized a server and several workstations, and arrested several programmers and bosses.
Can anybody confirm this?
--
Windows users:
Internet Explorer is obsolete. Please upgrade to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
azaris
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Can we trust them to be fair and unbiased in their "research"?
*boggle*
Someone on Slashdot is worried about whether Groklaw is being fair against SCO.
What next, FoxNews worried about the humane treatment of Saddam Hussein?
How to make money off of a failing company
by
cunninghammer
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Step 1: Contribute to Opensource.
Step 2: Forget you did it.
Step 3: Sue everyone else in hopes that one of the companies will decide it's cheaper to buy you then to fight.
Step 4: Watch the stock price go through the roof.
Step 5: Profit!
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
This guy brings up a great point. I'm an IT manager at a Fortune 500, and we are considering the ramifications of this case everyday at work.
Techies - if you want to convince your manager that SCO has no case, stop being so emotional about it. We in management have a hard time trusting your opinion when you seem to have so much invested in this emotionally.
This is not some battle of good v. evil - you aren't Bilbo fighting that evil eye at the top of the tower (forgot his name, evil wizard guy).
Re:Mirror please.
by
inode_buddha
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I've put copies in html here, postscript here, and PDF is here.
-- C|N>K
Regarding Groklaw's Slashdotting
by
santiag0
·
· Score: 5, Informative
There is a paypal link for those that wish to contribute a little something on the home page (once you can get it to load).
Maybe a few $ here and there from slashdot readers, and they can get a more robust setup, and survive the next slashdot link.
No pressure. Just a thought. I've given a little twice. Groklaw is a tremendous resource for those following the SCO/IBM/Redhat/Novell saga. PJ rocks!
Re:FBI investigates SCO as author of MyDoom virus!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Funny
It's gotta be a lie. We know SCO doesn't employ programmers anymore, just lawyers and executives.
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
jrumney
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Since when was PJ being so emotional about it? (She's not a techie anyway, she's a paralegal). You clearly have never read groklaw or you would not state so positively that this guy brings up a great point. PJ has stated on numerous occasions that she would welcome contributions from a pro-SCO point of view, but so far SCO has come up with zero genuine evidence that has not been thoroughly refuted by Linus, Perens and others before PJ gets a chance to post it to her site.
netcraft article
by
elvesRgay
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This is OT but Netcraft has an amusing article about what options SCO, the litigious bastards, are not using to avoid being DOSed by Mydoom tomarrow.
Look at the SCO pattern. They have made claims ranging from contract dispute with IBM to every OS in existance owing SCO IP money. They have nothing whatsoever to lose. They will merely pursue any interpretation of events which results in people owing them money. I don't know how they'll twist this yet, but since logic doesn't seem to have much to do with it they might say they were an unauthorized release and try to make some specific employee the goat, claim that the ABIs are an insignificant part of their total IP in Linux, or other things I'm not warped enough to think of. They aren't going to shut up for anything.
Even if after everything we've heard from them to date falls through, they may try to make the claim in court that every OS in existance is derived from SCO IP, and that being the case Linux users STILL owe SCO money, regardless of code. Nonsense yes, but when has that ever stopped them before?
Folks, the individual details of this don't matter at all. That's not what this is about. This is about SCO looking for a way - any way - to get Linux users to pay them. Knocking down a given specific detail won't phase them in the least. Until SCO in its current form is gone, we will never hear the end of this. Remember, they apparently even sent that letter to Congress saying open/free software was a threat to the US software industry! Their only concern is to come out on top, period. How is of no consequence.
Yes, this news could be useful to the likes of IBM (I can't see Groklaw so it's hard to say;-) But remember this isn't a war about details. This is about defining a goal, and getting there any way possible. We are in the way of SCO's using our code for commercial purposes. Therefore we are the enemy to be destroyed, and trying to reason with them has thus far been about as effective as talking a laser guided missle out of striking the target. I don't expect that trend to change any time soon, wherever the ABIs came from.
-- "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Re:Technology is Politics
by
timeOday
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Their contribution was under GPL. They will have to disprove that first, which IMHO is he kernel of the case
After all these months and hot air, I'm *still* unclear on that point. Some days the case is just a contract dispute between IBM and SCO, other days Daryl is ranting about how the GPL is unconstitutional and we're all commies bent on wrecking capitalism.
Personally I think SCO's ownership and their backers believe the latter, but could only trump up a quasi-case for the former.
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
kfg
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Legal advocates are never fair and unbiased. They are not supposed to be. That is the function of a judge.
However, if legal research finds a picture of Darl wearing a pair of shoes he says he never owned, well, than that's what they did. Bias doesn't even come into it.
Then it would be up to Darl to try to explain away the picture by saying it was Christmas and his cat DDOSed his regular shoes so he demanded that IBM loan him those, or some such nonesense.
And if it goes to trial Darl will have to try to put the glove on IBM.
KFG
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
AlterTick
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Groklaw is biased against SCO already. Can we trust them to be fair and unbiased in their "research"?
Bias doesn't automatically indicate dishonesty. Are they biased against SCO? Sure. Does this mean they're looking primarily at SCO rather than the OSS community for evidence of malfeasance? Sure does. Does this mean that evidence they find is worthless? Nope (it's PGP signed by Caldera fer gosh sakes). Just because Groklaw isn't also out looking for "the real killers" deosn't mean they're lying about SCO. You have to judge the honesty of an organization separately. Just because some people lie to support their biases doesn't mean all biased people are liars.
-- Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
Assignment of copyrights and carefull vetting
by
JohnQPublic
·
· Score: 4, Informative
This is exactly the reason why the FSF requires you to assign your copyright to them when you contribute code to GNU projects. Likewise the Apache Software Foundation and their projects. Someone should always have clear legal title to the entire project. Otherwise nobody may have legal status to defend it in court or to file suit against infringers.
The other side of this is that the ownership of all contributions need to be vetted by the person/group that receives ownership. Some groups ask new contributors for a written document asserting that they own what they're contributing, especially if the contributor works for a software company. That changes the legal situation - if The TDP Group sues the XYZ Foundation for stealing their code, the XYZ Foundation has a clear defense:
"Your Honor, we were told by Joe Coder that he had legal ownership of the code in question and he assigned that ownership to us. Naturally, if you determine otherwise, we'll comply with your order to remove it. However we believe that any damages
etc. are a matter between the plaintiff and Mr. Coder"
Now the last thing I want is for The TDP Group to sue me for code I put into XYZ, but if they find out I did it what will likely happen anyway.
Re:FBI investigates SCO as author of MyDoom virus!
by
Anthony+Boyd
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I don't buy it. The site says they got their information from IBM. That runs totally counter to IMB's don't-talk-to-the-press rule. It looks to me like an attempt to spread bad information, pin the blame on IBM, and tarnish them.
I'd love to be wrong, though. The idea of SCO writing a virus against itself for PR purposes is almost too funny. I'd imagine a company or two might sue SCO to cover wages spent doing MyDoom cleanup. Ha ha. That would make my heart feel soooo good.
In a Spirited scientific debate a set of twins took the Opportunity to dissent.
The Rover's was of the opinion that the sky had a brownish tint.
-- Help fight continental drift.
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
Crispy+Critters
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Can we trust them to be fair and unbiased in their "research"?
When a mistake is made in an article, is it analyzed and corrected? (Yes.)
Are the sources for background facts reliable? (Yes. Most of it comes from court documents and SEC filings, and an occasional question posed to directly to Linus or another expert.)
If anyone, even one of SCOG's lawyers, can come up with a single fact supporting their allegations or a consistent legal argument for their highly original interpretation of copyright law, Groklaw would happily publish it. The truth is that the only way to discuss the current and potential lawsuits is either 1) live in a fantasy world where the law and the facts have no effect or 2) talk badly about SCO. There is no third choice.
What can be done is to try to always tie arguments and opinions to the proveable facts as closely as possible, and this is what the Groklaw stories do.
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
jofny
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
She seems genuinely after the truth. This sort of reduces the probability that you'll see pro-SCO posts. It's not like Groklaw is accessing information that isn't publicly available for the most part. If there were references to "Hey, we were there behind closed doors with no witnesses and they said blah blah" then it would be fair to question Groklaw's fairness. When everything said can be double checked with comparative ease, would anyone (other than SCO) ignore or distort evidence? The readers there have proven they're willing to dig up every bit of arcane fact - I'm sure distortion would be discovered rather quickly. Note, for example, the "This couldnt be a DOS against SCO!" thread. Plenty of posts were spent contradicting that...
Full Article Text
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
This article is the result of a group research project, compiled and
primarily written by Frank Sorenson with Pamela Jones. The special
footnoted article explaining some of the terms for nonprogrammers was
written by Nick Richards. The research group was primarily composed of
Frank Sorenson, Dr. Stupid, Harlan Wilkerson, Rand McNatt, Roland
Buresund, and Pamela Jones, all of whom contributed both research and
writing, with input from some Linux kernel contributors. Everyone
worked on editing, including an invited group of Groklaw regulars.
However, Frank carried the load more than anyone else, so his name is
on the finished article.
We are now publishing the article and welcome Groklaw readers'
further
contributions, corrections, improvements, and comments. This is an
ongoing project. This article is the first in a series where we'll
discuss the System V UNIX ABI, or Application Binary Interface. We
approached the research as, What if Linus Torvalds had not already claimed
paternity of most of the header files? Then what?
The article will first explain what the ABI is and what it
does, then
discuss whether the code was released under the GPL and if so whether
management at SCO knew and approved, and finally show how the Linux
files that pertain to this do not appear to be infringing files that
SCO can claim.
For those who are not programmers, such as
myself, there is a footnoted section to explain in greater detail and
in plain English what ABIs and APIs and shared libraries are and how
they work. If you read it first, it will clarify the terminology for
you and you will be able to follow the thread in the article more
easily. At least, it helped me tremendously.
I think you will see from this article alone that if SCO is
planning to sue anyone over the ABI files, unless there are facts we
haven't unearthed, they seem to be leaning on a rickety bamboo reed.
GROKLAW TAKES A CLOSER LOOK AT THE ABI FILES
~by Frank Sorenson et al
Back in January 2003, word leaked out
that SCO was planning to charge Linux users for "System V Intellectual
Property" in Linux. SCO created a new business division called SCOSource to come up with new
ways to make money from this "intellectual property". The original SCOSource
Presentation (PowerPoint
version) talks of licensing SCO's shared UNIX Libraries from
OpenServer and UnixWare for use in Linux.
A Little Background: What Are ABI Files? [1]
As background information, shared libraries are files
containing
information to be loaded when an application is run. They usually
implement common routines, and their inclusion simplifies programming,
reduces file size, and standardizes interfaces. A simple example of
this would be the "copy file" and "move file" commands: both commands
check file permissions and manipulate the file system. When
applications have a great deal of functionality in common, this
functionality is often placed into shared libraries.
Shared libraries are architecture, operating-system, and
version specific. Executables for different systems follow various
standard formats, such as a.out, ELF, and COFF. To load an application,
the system must do several things: the system interprets the format of
the executable (or binary), loads any shared libraries referenced, and
begins executing the code found in the binary.
If the executable is in a different format from those the
system supports, or if the library files are for the wrong architecture
or operating system version, the binary normally will not run. In 1991,
Intel announced
the availability of the iBCS-2 (Intel Binary Compatibility
Re:Code and Cookies
by
enosys
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
What was known before would be more like:
A random person stuffs boxes of cookies into containers. The checkout clerks fail to notice boxes of cookies in containers and many people buy the containers with boxes of cookies in them but only pay for the container. The supermarket then tries to track down anyone who bought these and make them pay for the cookies.
Now things seem even worse for SCO. It seems they contributed the code. That's like some supermarket employee is told by their boss to stick the boxes of cookies into the containers and then label the items as "container with free box of cookies included". Surely they can't make people pay for the cookies now.
This is important to stop SCO's current attack
by
Thagg
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
SCO has recently sent a series of increasingly threatening letters to various Unix and Linux customers. In these letters, SCO approaches, and perhaps puts its toe over the line, between legal browbeating and illegal extortion.
These letters threaten the companies over exactly this ABI issue. In the days before the internet and sites like Groklaw, people had to decide on their own, or with their lawyers, what to do about these letters. Each of the victims might attempt to do the kind of research done by Frank Sorenson and Pamely Jones here, but as the victims are probably not intellectual property experts and have their own businesses to run, they might be tempted to pay off the extortionists.
But, now they each one of the victims has the benefit of this research, and can make a much more informed decision. The Groklaw article also provides links to the original source for each of their assertions, so that the recipients of the letters can look at the actual underlying data.
All that said, the article is reminds me of the opening to Get Smart, where Maxwell Smart goes through an almost interminable series of doors to get to his destination. Sorenson and Jones, and their helpers, have found any number of different ways that the code in question is available for use. SCO is screwed on the basis of any one of those.
Thad Beier
-- I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
Some+Dumbass...
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Can we trust them to be fair and unbiased in their "research"?
Does it matter?
In any legal situation (a trial, contract dispute, or whatever) both sides try to find evidence which supports their case. Neither side is "fair" or "unbiased". Yet legal disputes get resolved all the time. What's the magical secret? The judge and jury get to see all of the evidence, then they make up their minds based on all of the evidence which they have seen.
Groklaw may well be biased against SCO, but all they're doing is presenting more evidence. That's exactly what both sides are supposed to do (and what SCO has been criticized for not doing).
See, you seem to want us to ignore "biased" sources of evidence. "Groklaw is biased, so they can't be trusted" is a decent summary of what you wrote. You've got to think about this on a higher level. Very few unbiased groups will ever get involved in a legal dispute. That's the nature of legal disputes, or even disputes in general -- if you don't care, you don't get involved! So the trick is to focus on evidence and solid, logical arguments rather than rhetoric. Focus on what each side can prove rather than merely what they say. That's the way to deal with situations in which interested parties are involves (which includes almost all legal disputes, and many other situations as well). Simply ignoring any biased opinion (is there any other kind of opinion?) will leave you ignorant.
That'll stop the stupid crooks
by
roystgnr
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The smart ones will realize that it doesn't matter what happens to the corporate name, as long as all the corporate insiders can make millions of dollars along the way. The only way future would-be SCO's will be deterred is if all the people who have been lying and dissembling to pump up their stock are fined well in excess of their profits and/or do prison time for their fraud. You can bet this won't happen.
Re:That'll stop the stupid crooks
by
pjrc
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
No. It doesn't matter if the insiders laugh all the way to the bank (presumably in the Cayman Islands). What matters is SCOX investors losing money and the company utterly ruined.
The only reason Darl and crew are able to take this stupid strategy is they've managed to convince some investors there is a chance they can pull it off. When it turns out to be a dismal, money losing failure for all investors, future greedy unscrupulous CEOs just won't have the backing to persue such a folly.
Re:But didn't Linus say he wrote those?
by
spitzak
·
· Score: 5, Informative
No this is not errno.h and so on.
The ABI files being discussed here are some files that it was considered quite likely SCO owns, and were never included in Linux although they were added by some third parties to installations to port their software from SCO to Linux. They duplicate the SCO ABI which is different than the Linux ABI. It is a lot like Wine being used to run Windows programs, though a lot easier.
In fact these files probably contain code to patch over the differences between the Linux errno.h and the Unix one, so it certainly is not the Linus header files.
The header file stuff is a joke anyways, as Daryl clearly said many times that only Linux after 2.4 is infringing. The header files did not change between 2.2 and 2.4.
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
FunWithHeadlines
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"Plus, it's blatantly obvious that PJ's whole rationale for spending dozens of hours a week doing Groklaw is to defeat SCO in the public relations war. Chip on her shoulder?"
Not at all. Groklaw is stated to be an anti-FUD site. That is what PJ does, she fights FUD. Guess where most of the FUD has been coming from in this case? So what else would you WANT her to do? Just ignore it?
'Not that there's anything wrong with all that, but you aren't going to convince any outsiders of Groklaw's 'level headed objectivity'. Looks like any bunch of Linux kooks from here."
No it doesn't. Groklaw has been cited in many news articles, is read by CEOs and lawyers and reporters, and has been included in the court case by being cited by IBM. You don't get that level of respect by authorities if you are viewed as "a bunch of Linux kooks." Sorry, go spread your FUD elsewhere, it doesn't apply to Groklaw.
Re:Technology is Politics
by
Krow10
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Their contribution was under GPL. They will have to disprove that first, which IMHO is he kernel of the case
After all these months and hot air, I'm *still* unclear on that point.
This particular point goes specifically to the claims made in this letter to Unix Licensees that SCOX sent out a little over a month ago. If SCOX released those into linux under the GPL (and they did,) then they cannot go after *anyone* (including Unix licensees) for using a version of linux with those files without violating the GPL. Additionally, if *they* distribute a version of linux which contains those files (and they do) they are in violation of the copyright of every other contributer to any such linux distribution that they are distributing. Thus, pretty much any recipient of the above linked letter has a pretty good case for telling SCOX to pound sand (after consulting a lawyer to be sure) and IBM has a damned good case in their copyright countersuit. By pointing to the letter, and to the GPL ABI release by SCOX and then pointing to any linux distribution from SCOX's site in the recent past (and there have been plenty right up until 1/25 -- but oddly various locations keep disappearing with each DDoS) IBM can show good evidence that SCOX tried to sublicense linux (the letter) for containing something that they themselves released as GPL into linux (PGP signed files) and that, since they are in violation of the GPL terms, they do not have permission to distribute linux, which they are doing (get someone who's recently downloaded the kernel from the SCOX site to testify.) SCOX is SCOrewed.
Cheers,
Craig
-- Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
strider
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Argh!
It's not a problem that Groklaw might or might not be biased in their research. EVERYONE IS BIASED! Why is it that so many people, whether critizing slashdot's "anti-microsoft bias" or now Groklaw's "anti-sco bias" seem to be scouring the world searching for someone to write an article or produce a site on a topic totally neutral on every possible opinion on the subject. Groklaw thinks SCO is full of shit. Therefore they are biased. Groklaw's arguments and evidence seem to substantiate their claims. Therefore they are also probably CORRECT.
Dealing with bias is why you have a brain. Read the articles, judge their evidence, and come to your own conclusion. If you disagree provide a detailed analysis, and prove your point. Enough with the goddamned bias mania.
-- The preceding passage has been checked for spelling,
you will find no sentence without at least one mis spelled word
"Even if after everything we've heard from them to date falls through, they may try to make the claim in court that every OS in existence is derived from SCO IP, and that being the case Linux users STILL owe SCO money, regardless of code."
Not gonna happen.
"Folks, the individual details of this don't matter at all. That's not what this is about."
No actually the details do matter. They matter in the court of law. Contrary to popular belief you can't just buy your way into winning every lawsuit.
"We are in the way of SCO's using our code for commercial purposes. Therefore we are the enemy to be destroyed, "
Yea, so what? MS wants linux destroyed as well and you how well that's worked for them.
Look, your just acting a bit hysterical here. Facts and law do matter. And contrary to your sky is falling ideas Linux isn't going to be destroyed by anyone. If it turns out that Caldera released the code under the GPL 5 years ago or whatever then this is hugely damaging to the case. This IS helpful. You can't just dismiss that and say "well SCO will just think of some angle to spin this." My advice to you is relax a bit and ease off the coffee. This case will resolve itself and there is no indication from any repudiable legal counsel or expert that SCO will be the end of Linux.
-- If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Not a GPL-only problem
by
spitzak
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Obviously the same problem applies to putting code in the public domain, or the BSD license, or even giving closed source under NDA to another party, and every other method of releasing copyrighted information. You can always claim it was inadvertent and try to retrieve the rights you gave away.
Trying to say this is a "problem with the GPL" is pure FUD. It is like saying auto accidents are proof that there is a problem with the Lincoln Continental.
Validation of the open source model
by
El
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It appears that in addition to all bugs being shallow with enough eyes, that all complicated legal problems are also shallow with enough eyes. How many people have helped Pamela Jones in this by locating references? It appears that open source methodology may be an advantage in legal cases as well as software development!
--
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
But the judge WILL decide if it's admissable.
by
Ungrounded+Lightning
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
remember the judge wont be deciding anything. its the jury
But the judge WILL decide if it's admissable, and the jury is instructed to ignore it (or shielded from even hearing about it) if it's not.
Fortunately, digital signatures were explicitly designed for proving authorship in the digital world of generally untracable bits, and governments, including both the executive (by regs) and legislative (by law) branches of the Fed, are moving to make them legal proof. (See SEAL, E-SIGN, Millennium Digital Commerce Act, etc.) They're already recognized by Utah (not that it matters in a federal court...)
Since this is a civil case, where the standard is a "preponderance of evidence", and the signatures are being introduced by the defense, I'd be surprised if the judge excludes such evidence. (Think about it - what non-digital evidence is there of ANYTHING related to the case?)
If there is no direction from law or precedent, I'd expect him to let it in and let the experts from both sides argue the difficulties of forgery.
(IANAL, your mileage may vary, take this with a grain of salt, etc.)
-- Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
When the facts are on one side, the other side can't do much except resort to innuendo and FUD. Thus the rise in 'Groklaw is biased' whispers I've seen over the past few months. Well, against SCO, who could NOT be biased at this point unless you are ignorant of the facts of the case? The more you learn about SCO's claims, the more you realize they have nothing. That is why the mainstream press has been slowly but steadily turning against SCO too. They have realized what Groklaw saw early on.
If a guy wants to mug you, guess what? You are biased against his claims against your money.
Public thanks for Groklaw
by
3Suns
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I'm not sure if it's been done, or if plans are in the works, but Groklaw has been a tremendous boon to the Open Source community. Everybody involved with making that site, especially Pamela Jones, has done an enormous amount of expensive work, pro bono, on our (the Open Source community's) behalf. The evidence is out there, and thanks to Groklaw it is being found and the world is being informed.
I'd like to point everybody to the little paypal button on the groklaw sidebar. They deserve credit for their work. Are there any plans for some kind of big party at a linux conference for Pam Jones et al.? Maybe after the case is settled.
Slashdot Mirror
Sky reported to be blue after extensive research.
I'm amazing. You aren't. SUCK IT
...was under GPL. They will have to disprove that first, which IMHO is he kernel of the case (other than a last-ditch effort to get bought out which seems to have failed).
--
FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
Imagine a beowulf cluster of... er... I for one welcome our new... uhm... All of your ABI belong... Sh*t!
hey sco. go sue yourself.
Fair question:
What's to prevent any other contributor from pulling a future SCO? Especially when you have a codebse that has such a large number of contributors. And a large variety of licenses.
And all I can say is that a certain Nancy Sinatra song comes to mind when I think of SCO..
This is going to be FUN...
when this SCO thing gets to an end?
I appreciate they are doing a very worthy work (and getting the slashdot crowd to a more informed talk about SCO, something necessary because the old jokes are starting to become _really_ old).
I sure would like them to go on when this SCO fiasto bluffs down. The free software world really needs an army of lawyers and paralawyers, if we want to stay long. I only can say "Kudos to you, groklawyers! Go on!"
My journal. Mainly about freedom.
Not one of TSCOG claims has ever been proven
In fact, just about everything that they have claimed gets disproved rather quickly via groklaw. While there are a few things left, it only requires for SCO to submit the evidence so that groklaw can look at it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Why is the parent moded as flamebait?
Isnt that the truth that Groklaw are probably biased against SCO?
Groklaw has probably uncovered quite a lot of dirt on SCO that is correct, and I doubt that they lie about anything.
But if one has taken sides on an issue, can we trust that the person wont turn a blind eye on some facts? Will he present facts that might not go down to well with his own version and side?
I think it is only a fair comment.
SCO are probably a bunch of liars, but underestimating and brushing aside an opponent as "nothing" WILL in most cases come back and bite you in the *ss.
Does it matter? Evidence either proves something, or it doesn't.
I heard that the RIAA stole a lot of proprietary code from SCO, and that people at SCO have been illegally downloading a bunch of Metallica MP3s.
Actually, it would suffice to say that Groklaw is more interested in finding information that would benefit SCO.
In fact, the entire Linux community is more concerned with finding facts that could help SCO.
Well, alteast they WERE. The simple fact is, SCO has lied and been caught soooo many times over the last few months... all we can do now is wait for them to lie again so we can disprove it.
It's simple, SCO has lied and it's a known fact. They've lied a LOT, made a LOT of false allegations, etc al..
If you bite into a terd, it's going to taste like shit. No amount of suger and spice is going to make it otherwise.
According to this article, the FBI has visited SCO, seized a server and several workstations, and arrested several programmers and bosses.
Can anybody confirm this?
Windows users:
Internet Explorer is obsolete. Please upgrade to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.
Can we trust them to be fair and unbiased in their "research"?
*boggle*
Someone on Slashdot is worried about whether Groklaw is being fair against SCO.
What next, FoxNews worried about the humane treatment of Saddam Hussein?
Step 2: Forget you did it.
Step 3: Sue everyone else in hopes that one of the companies will decide it's cheaper to buy you then to fight.
Step 4: Watch the stock price go through the roof.
Step 5: Profit!
Looks like at least a few figured it out.
This guy brings up a great point. I'm an IT manager at a Fortune 500, and we are considering the ramifications of this case everyday at work.
Techies - if you want to convince your manager that SCO has no case, stop being so emotional about it. We in management have a hard time trusting your opinion when you seem to have so much invested in this emotionally.
This is not some battle of good v. evil - you aren't Bilbo fighting that evil eye at the top of the tower (forgot his name, evil wizard guy).
I've put copies in html here, postscript here, and PDF is here.
C|N>K
There is a paypal link for those that wish to contribute a little something on the home page (once you can get it to load).
Maybe a few $ here and there from slashdot readers, and they can get a more robust setup, and survive the next slashdot link.
No pressure. Just a thought. I've given a little twice. Groklaw is a tremendous resource for those following the SCO/IBM/Redhat/Novell saga. PJ rocks!
It's gotta be a lie. We know SCO doesn't employ programmers anymore, just lawyers and executives.
Since when was PJ being so emotional about it? (She's not a techie anyway, she's a paralegal). You clearly have never read groklaw or you would not state so positively that this guy brings up a great point. PJ has stated on numerous occasions that she would welcome contributions from a pro-SCO point of view, but so far SCO has come up with zero genuine evidence that has not been thoroughly refuted by Linus, Perens and others before PJ gets a chance to post it to her site.
This is OT but Netcraft has an amusing article about what options SCO, the litigious bastards, are not using to avoid being DOSed by Mydoom tomarrow.
Good news, yes. Helpful, not really.
;-) But remember this isn't a war about details. This is about defining a goal, and getting there any way possible. We are in the way of SCO's using our code for commercial purposes. Therefore we are the enemy to be destroyed, and trying to reason with them has thus far been about as effective as talking a laser guided missle out of striking the target. I don't expect that trend to change any time soon, wherever the ABIs came from.
Look at the SCO pattern. They have made claims ranging from contract dispute with IBM to every OS in existance owing SCO IP money. They have nothing whatsoever to lose. They will merely pursue any interpretation of events which results in people owing them money. I don't know how they'll twist this yet, but since logic doesn't seem to have much to do with it they might say they were an unauthorized release and try to make some specific employee the goat, claim that the ABIs are an insignificant part of their total IP in Linux, or other things I'm not warped enough to think of. They aren't going to shut up for anything.
Even if after everything we've heard from them to date falls through, they may try to make the claim in court that every OS in existance is derived from SCO IP, and that being the case Linux users STILL owe SCO money, regardless of code. Nonsense yes, but when has that ever stopped them before?
Folks, the individual details of this don't matter at all. That's not what this is about. This is about SCO looking for a way - any way - to get Linux users to pay them. Knocking down a given specific detail won't phase them in the least. Until SCO in its current form is gone, we will never hear the end of this. Remember, they apparently even sent that letter to Congress saying open/free software was a threat to the US software industry! Their only concern is to come out on top, period. How is of no consequence.
Yes, this news could be useful to the likes of IBM (I can't see Groklaw so it's hard to say
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Personally I think SCO's ownership and their backers believe the latter, but could only trump up a quasi-case for the former.
Legal advocates are never fair and unbiased. They are not supposed to be. That is the function of a judge.
However, if legal research finds a picture of Darl wearing a pair of shoes he says he never owned, well, than that's what they did. Bias doesn't even come into it.
Then it would be up to Darl to try to explain away the picture by saying it was Christmas and his cat DDOSed his regular shoes so he demanded that IBM loan him those, or some such nonesense.
And if it goes to trial Darl will have to try to put the glove on IBM.
KFG
Bias doesn't automatically indicate dishonesty. Are they biased against SCO? Sure. Does this mean they're looking primarily at SCO rather than the OSS community for evidence of malfeasance? Sure does. Does this mean that evidence they find is worthless? Nope (it's PGP signed by Caldera fer gosh sakes). Just because Groklaw isn't also out looking for "the real killers" deosn't mean they're lying about SCO. You have to judge the honesty of an organization separately. Just because some people lie to support their biases doesn't mean all biased people are liars.
Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
This is exactly the reason why the FSF requires you to assign your copyright to them when you contribute code to GNU projects. Likewise the Apache Software Foundation and their projects. Someone should always have clear legal title to the entire project. Otherwise nobody may have legal status to defend it in court or to file suit against infringers.
The other side of this is that the ownership of all contributions need to be vetted by the person/group that receives ownership. Some groups ask new contributors for a written document asserting that they own what they're contributing, especially if the contributor works for a software company. That changes the legal situation - if The TDP Group sues the XYZ Foundation for stealing their code, the XYZ Foundation has a clear defense:
Now the last thing I want is for The TDP Group to sue me for code I put into XYZ, but if they find out I did it what will likely happen anyway.I don't buy it. The site says they got their information from IBM. That runs totally counter to IMB's don't-talk-to-the-press rule. It looks to me like an attempt to spread bad information, pin the blame on IBM, and tarnish them.
I'd love to be wrong, though. The idea of SCO writing a virus against itself for PR purposes is almost too funny. I'd imagine a company or two might sue SCO to cover wages spent doing MyDoom cleanup. Ha ha. That would make my heart feel soooo good.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
The Rover's was of the opinion that the sky had a brownish tint.
Help fight continental drift.
When a mistake is made in an article, is it analyzed and corrected? (Yes.)
Are the sources for background facts reliable? (Yes. Most of it comes from court documents and SEC filings, and an occasional question posed to directly to Linus or another expert.)
If anyone, even one of SCOG's lawyers, can come up with a single fact supporting their allegations or a consistent legal argument for their highly original interpretation of copyright law, Groklaw would happily publish it. The truth is that the only way to discuss the current and potential lawsuits is either 1) live in a fantasy world where the law and the facts have no effect or 2) talk badly about SCO. There is no third choice.
What can be done is to try to always tie arguments and opinions to the proveable facts as closely as possible, and this is what the Groklaw stories do.
She seems genuinely after the truth. This sort of reduces the probability that you'll see pro-SCO posts. It's not like Groklaw is accessing information that isn't publicly available for the most part. If there were references to "Hey, we were there behind closed doors with no witnesses and they said blah blah" then it would be fair to question Groklaw's fairness. When everything said can be double checked with comparative ease, would anyone (other than SCO) ignore or distort evidence? The readers there have proven they're willing to dig up every bit of arcane fact - I'm sure distortion would be discovered rather quickly. Note, for example, the "This couldnt be a DOS against SCO!" thread. Plenty of posts were spent contradicting that...
We are now publishing the article and welcome Groklaw readers' further contributions, corrections, improvements, and comments. This is an ongoing project. This article is the first in a series where we'll discuss the System V UNIX ABI, or Application Binary Interface. We approached the research as, What if Linus Torvalds had not already claimed paternity of most of the header files? Then what?
The article will first explain what the ABI is and what it does, then discuss whether the code was released under the GPL and if so whether management at SCO knew and approved, and finally show how the Linux files that pertain to this do not appear to be infringing files that SCO can claim.
For those who are not programmers, such as myself, there is a footnoted section to explain in greater detail and in plain English what ABIs and APIs and shared libraries are and how they work. If you read it first, it will clarify the terminology for you and you will be able to follow the thread in the article more easily. At least, it helped me tremendously.
I think you will see from this article alone that if SCO is planning to sue anyone over the ABI files, unless there are facts we haven't unearthed, they seem to be leaning on a rickety bamboo reed.
GROKLAW TAKES A CLOSER LOOK AT THE ABI FILES
~by Frank Sorenson et al
Back in January 2003, word leaked out that SCO was planning to charge Linux users for "System V Intellectual Property" in Linux. SCO created a new business division called SCOSource to come up with new ways to make money from this "intellectual property". The original SCOSource Presentation (PowerPoint version) talks of licensing SCO's shared UNIX Libraries from OpenServer and UnixWare for use in Linux.
A Little Background: What Are ABI Files? [1]
As background information, shared libraries are files containing information to be loaded when an application is run. They usually implement common routines, and their inclusion simplifies programming, reduces file size, and standardizes interfaces. A simple example of this would be the "copy file" and "move file" commands: both commands check file permissions and manipulate the file system. When applications have a great deal of functionality in common, this functionality is often placed into shared libraries.
Shared libraries are architecture, operating-system, and version specific. Executables for different systems follow various standard formats, such as a.out, ELF, and COFF. To load an application, the system must do several things: the system interprets the format of the executable (or binary), loads any shared libraries referenced, and begins executing the code found in the binary.
If the executable is in a different format from those the system supports, or if the library files are for the wrong architecture or operating system version, the binary normally will not run. In 1991, Intel announced the availability of the iBCS-2 (Intel Binary Compatibility
Now things seem even worse for SCO. It seems they contributed the code. That's like some supermarket employee is told by their boss to stick the boxes of cookies into the containers and then label the items as "container with free box of cookies included". Surely they can't make people pay for the cookies now.
SCO has recently sent a series of increasingly threatening letters to various Unix and Linux customers. In these letters, SCO approaches, and perhaps puts its toe over the line, between legal browbeating and illegal extortion.
These letters threaten the companies over exactly this ABI issue. In the days before the internet and sites like Groklaw, people had to decide on their own, or with their lawyers, what to do about these letters. Each of the victims might attempt to do the kind of research done by Frank Sorenson and Pamely Jones here, but as the victims are probably not intellectual property experts and have their own businesses to run, they might be tempted to pay off the extortionists.
But, now they each one of the victims has the benefit of this research, and can make a much more informed decision. The Groklaw article also provides links to the original source for each of their assertions, so that the recipients of the letters can look at the actual underlying data.
All that said, the article is reminds me of the opening to Get Smart, where Maxwell Smart goes through an almost interminable series of doors to get to his destination. Sorenson and Jones, and their helpers, have found any number of different ways that the code in question is available for use. SCO is screwed on the basis of any one of those.
Thad Beier
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Can we trust them to be fair and unbiased in their "research"?
Does it matter?
In any legal situation (a trial, contract dispute, or whatever) both sides try to find evidence which supports their case. Neither side is "fair" or "unbiased". Yet legal disputes get resolved all the time. What's the magical secret? The judge and jury get to see all of the evidence, then they make up their minds based on all of the evidence which they have seen.
Groklaw may well be biased against SCO, but all they're doing is presenting more evidence. That's exactly what both sides are supposed to do (and what SCO has been criticized for not doing).
See, you seem to want us to ignore "biased" sources of evidence. "Groklaw is biased, so they can't be trusted" is a decent summary of what you wrote. You've got to think about this on a higher level. Very few unbiased groups will ever get involved in a legal dispute. That's the nature of legal disputes, or even disputes in general -- if you don't care, you don't get involved! So the trick is to focus on evidence and solid, logical arguments rather than rhetoric. Focus on what each side can prove rather than merely what they say. That's the way to deal with situations in which interested parties are involves (which includes almost all legal disputes, and many other situations as well). Simply ignoring any biased opinion (is there any other kind of opinion?) will leave you ignorant.
The smart ones will realize that it doesn't matter what happens to the corporate name, as long as all the corporate insiders can make millions of dollars along the way. The only way future would-be SCO's will be deterred is if all the people who have been lying and dissembling to pump up their stock are fined well in excess of their profits and/or do prison time for their fraud. You can bet this won't happen.
No this is not errno.h and so on.
The ABI files being discussed here are some files that it was considered quite likely SCO owns, and were never included in Linux although they were added by some third parties to installations to port their software from SCO to Linux. They duplicate the SCO ABI which is different than the Linux ABI. It is a lot like Wine being used to run Windows programs, though a lot easier.
In fact these files probably contain code to patch over the differences between the Linux errno.h and the Unix one, so it certainly is not the Linus header files.
The header file stuff is a joke anyways, as Daryl clearly said many times that only Linux after 2.4 is infringing. The header files did not change between 2.2 and 2.4.
Not at all. Groklaw is stated to be an anti-FUD site. That is what PJ does, she fights FUD. Guess where most of the FUD has been coming from in this case? So what else would you WANT her to do? Just ignore it?
'Not that there's anything wrong with all that, but you aren't going to convince any outsiders of Groklaw's 'level headed objectivity'. Looks like any bunch of Linux kooks from here."
No it doesn't. Groklaw has been cited in many news articles, is read by CEOs and lawyers and reporters, and has been included in the court case by being cited by IBM. You don't get that level of respect by authorities if you are viewed as "a bunch of Linux kooks." Sorry, go spread your FUD elsewhere, it doesn't apply to Groklaw.
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Argh!
It's not a problem that Groklaw might or might not be biased in their research. EVERYONE IS BIASED! Why is it that so many people, whether critizing slashdot's "anti-microsoft bias" or now Groklaw's "anti-sco bias" seem to be scouring the world searching for someone to write an article or produce a site on a topic totally neutral on every possible opinion on the subject. Groklaw thinks SCO is full of shit. Therefore they are biased. Groklaw's arguments and evidence seem to substantiate their claims. Therefore they are also probably CORRECT.
Dealing with bias is why you have a brain. Read the articles, judge their evidence, and come to your own conclusion. If you disagree provide a detailed analysis, and prove your point. Enough with the goddamned bias mania.
The preceding passage has been checked for spelling, you will find no sentence without at least one mis spelled word
Come on now.
"Even if after everything we've heard from them to date falls through, they may try to make the claim in court that every OS in existence is derived from SCO IP, and that being the case Linux users STILL owe SCO money, regardless of code."
Not gonna happen.
"Folks, the individual details of this don't matter at all. That's not what this is about."
No actually the details do matter. They matter in the court of law. Contrary to popular belief you can't just buy your way into winning every lawsuit.
"We are in the way of SCO's using our code for commercial purposes. Therefore we are the enemy to be destroyed, "
Yea, so what? MS wants linux destroyed as well and you how well that's worked for them.
Look, your just acting a bit hysterical here. Facts and law do matter. And contrary to your sky is falling ideas Linux isn't going to be destroyed by anyone. If it turns out that Caldera released the code under the GPL 5 years ago or whatever then this is hugely damaging to the case. This IS helpful. You can't just dismiss that and say "well SCO will just think of some angle to spin this." My advice to you is relax a bit and ease off the coffee. This case will resolve itself and there is no indication from any repudiable legal counsel or expert that SCO will be the end of Linux.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Obviously the same problem applies to putting code in the public domain, or the BSD license, or even giving closed source under NDA to another party, and every other method of releasing copyrighted information. You can always claim it was inadvertent and try to retrieve the rights you gave away.
Trying to say this is a "problem with the GPL" is pure FUD. It is like saying auto accidents are proof that there is a problem with the Lincoln Continental.
It appears that in addition to all bugs being shallow with enough eyes, that all complicated legal problems are also shallow with enough eyes. How many people have helped Pamela Jones in this by locating references? It appears that open source methodology may be an advantage in legal cases as well as software development!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
remember the judge wont be deciding anything. its the jury
But the judge WILL decide if it's admissable, and the jury is instructed to ignore it (or shielded from even hearing about it) if it's not.
Fortunately, digital signatures were explicitly designed for proving authorship in the digital world of generally untracable bits, and governments, including both the executive (by regs) and legislative (by law) branches of the Fed, are moving to make them legal proof. (See SEAL, E-SIGN, Millennium Digital Commerce Act, etc.) They're already recognized by Utah (not that it matters in a federal court...)
Since this is a civil case, where the standard is a "preponderance of evidence", and the signatures are being introduced by the defense, I'd be surprised if the judge excludes such evidence. (Think about it - what non-digital evidence is there of ANYTHING related to the case?)
If there is no direction from law or precedent, I'd expect him to let it in and let the experts from both sides argue the difficulties of forgery.
(IANAL, your mileage may vary, take this with a grain of salt, etc.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If a guy wants to mug you, guess what? You are biased against his claims against your money.
I'm not sure if it's been done, or if plans are in the works, but Groklaw has been a tremendous boon to the Open Source community. Everybody involved with making that site, especially Pamela Jones, has done an enormous amount of expensive work, pro bono, on our (the Open Source community's) behalf. The evidence is out there, and thanks to Groklaw it is being found and the world is being informed.
I'd like to point everybody to the little paypal button on the groklaw sidebar. They deserve credit for their work. Are there any plans for some kind of big party at a linux conference for Pam Jones et al.? Maybe after the case is settled.
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted