Slashdot Mirror
SCO Lists Specific Code-Infringement Claims
mugnyte writes "Those tireless folks at groklaw have transcribed and published the documents from the latest IBM/SCO hearing. In it, the exact lines of the supposed Dynix / AIX / Linux logic are given. SCO claimed that Linux's read copy update, journaling file system, enterprise volume management system, AIO (Asynchronous I/O), and "scatter gather" I/O code had been derived from either AIX or Dynix/ptx. Now we can take a look at what SCO thinks makes Linux an enterprise-ready platform started at 2.4, stealing away their market share. However, IBM released these things under the GPL ... so what license did IBM really have from SCO to do this? Which raises the question, What license did SCO have from Novell to disallow this?"
When you're too lazy to do your homework, what do you do? You cheat. And that's exactly what SCO's trying to do. Rather than do their homework and realize they have no case, they're trying to make others do it for them, and in a sense cheating. Case in point is this article which seems to pretty much clearly show that SCO is full of their own crap. There's a saying that if you tell a lie long enough, you'll start to believe it. And that's exactly what SCO is doing. They're trying to push the lies so that people will believe them. In reality, its organizations like IBM, Novell, AT&T, and groklaw that are doing all of SCO's homework for them. Heck, SCO even tried to compel IBM to show source code for AIX and Dynix which would effectively cause IBM to make SCO's case for them. This is turning into nothing more than sensationalism for SCO. Any bets on how much SCO stock is sold off tomorrow?
The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers
Once again.. If we do change these "offending" code blocks, we would be admitting to our "guilt".
The kernel hackers should not even think about changi anything until these lawsuits are resolved..
Why give your enemy more ammunition? He'll just come back and attack you again...
Karma: Bad (but who really cares anyway?)
Well, it's apparent now that SCO is not claiming that there has been any "direct copying" of code from System V into Linux. Instead, they're arguing that IBM and Sequent's licenses to use System V source code prohibited them from making publicly available any portion of the source code of their "derivative work," that is to say, code that they developed based on System V.
The problem with SCO's reasoning is that the RCU code is completely separate from System V. It doesn't contain any System V code at all. As such, it isn't a derivative work. Despite this, SCO is claiming that any code at all that IBM or Sequent developed for their respective System V derivatives (AIX and Dynix/ptx) is either owned by SCO or is to be treated under the same terms as the System V source code itself.
It's actually kind of ironic, considering that SCO has been claiming all this time that the GPL is bad because it's "viral." It sounds to me that the System V licensing agreement, as construed by SCO, is far worse! However, given the side letter AT&T issued to IBM in 1985 telling IBM that IBM's own non-derivative source code belonged to, well, IBM, I doubt SCO's claims will bear up in court.
Actually none of this code is SCO's... This is all IBM code. The question is whether or not The code came from AIX or Dynix (both owned by IBM), but whether (a) did it originally come from AIX or Dynix (quite possibly not) and if it did (b) did IBM have th right to release in their licensce with SCO/Novell. Perhaps you should follow the story closer next time...
SCO's case does not hinge on proving that AIX/Dynix code appears in Linux.
SCO's case hinges on proving that IBM does not own the code it contributed. Which, according to the terms of the UNIX license from AT&T, IBM does have full ownership rights to derivative works.
SCO is deliberately misinterpreting a clause in the original agreement and spinning it as hard as possible.
Previous owners of UNIX rights have clarified the terms to be more in the UNIX licensee's favor in subsequent communications as well. It would be madness for a judge to overlook all of this if they did decide the clause was vague and needed to speculate on the spirit of the agreement.
The million dollar question here is what the hell is David Boies doing backing these con artists? Not having an answer to that question is the only thing stopping me from shorting SCO's stock.
SCO lacks standing to sue over something that happened in 1999. Caldera bought the Unix rights from Santa Cruz Operation in 2001. Any injury that supposedly occurred would have happened to the company now known as Tarantella. IBM pulled out of Monterey shortly after Caldera agreed to buy the rights from Santa Cruz Operation, but well before the deal was closed. Caldera knew IBM had pulled out long before they closed the deal. They have no grounds to make accusations against IBM.
First, SCO needs to show infringing lines of
code. The court directed SCO to provide to IBM what
IBM requested in discovery and one item, the main
item, were lines of code from original Unix that are
in Linux by means of IBM. SCO only responded with
code not in original UNIX, but programs wholely
written by (at the time) Sequent and IBM. SCO's
contention is that since they touched UNIX they are
UNIX is a *##&*$&)$#@
+++ATH
OK
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
If the GPL author can demand that an entire codebase be opened upon the inclusion of even a small amount of GPL'd code, then SCO is well within their rights to demand the same in their licenses and expect the same adherence from the licensee.
Nonsense. The GPL is an affirmative grant of expanded copyright privileges. If I create some code and incorporate some GPL'ed stuff into it, it is not the case that my code is suddenly tainted and becomes GPL'ed. It's just that if I distribute the combined work under terms incompatible with the GPL, I am illegally distributing that (GPL'ed) portion of the combined work whose copyright does not belong to me. GPL'ing my own software is NOT mandatory.. neither the FSF nor Linus Torvalds, no anyone else has the right to force me to GPL my code. But they can stop me from distributing _their_ code.. and if my code is totally useless without that GPL'ed software, well, too bad.
The AT&T contract that SCO is basing their entire case on (although they've been screaming bloody murder to distract people from this fact in the press) states that derived works shall be treated in similar fashion to AT&T's unmodified works for the purposes of the IBM/Sequent/SGI contracts. That is, you can't modify AT&T's code and then give it away.
That says nothing about RCU or JFS or XFS, which are original code created by IBM and SGI, respectively. That code is not derivative of AT&T's code merely because it was commingled into AIX and IRIX. AT&T/Novell/SCO/Caldera/SCOX did not have anything to do with the creation of RCU, JFS, or XFS. SCO is making a very persuasive case that RCU, JFS, and XFS were contributed to Linux by IBM and SGI, here. And that's great. But they haven't shown in the slightest degree that, against all common sense or case law, IBM and SGI's original works become 'derivative' of AT&T's code because they were at one point commingled into a product that contained AT&T code.
The GPL doesn't work that way. The AT&T license didn't work that way, judging from AT&T's own comments in the 1985 $echo newsletter cited at GROKLAW. And you know what? Copyright doesn't work that way, either.
IANALTG.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Actually people lie for a third reason, to GENERATE conflict. Michael Robertson (more info in the link in my sig) lies to generate publicity surrounding his company. Darl lies because it will artificially inflate his stock price, by getting him noticed. Robertson lies because it gets him sympathy if he says his company is being beat up by Microsoft. Darl didn't DARE sue Linus or Linux (in any concrete form), he went after IBM, which has deep pockets.
Anyway, just wanted to clarify that some people lie to GENERATE conflict.
Lindows Steals Copyrighted Art and Promotes Porn
AT&T said in 1985 that additions to UNIX were not considered derivative works, only modifications to the actual code.
IBM's license reiterates that IBM owns their contributions, and is perpetual and irrevocable.
Novell backs up IBM's claims, and offers proof that SCO does not own UNIX.
There was no written transfer of copyrights from Novell to SCO. SCO (old SCO, not Caldera/SCO) bought the UNIX business, not the UNIX copyrights.
SCO failed under a court order to identify any code of "theirs" in Linux that IBM didn't write.
They did identify hundreds of lines in Linux that IBM wrote, and own, far short of the millions of lines of UNIX code they claim were illegally copied in violation of SCO's copyrights.
SCO does not even have a copy of the "derivative" AIX source code they claim to own.
SCO has violated thousands of copyrights and broken many laws.
SCO still offered the code in question under the GPL far into the discpute, and it's even digitally signed with their key.
Etc. Groklaw explains it all.
What a load of crap. Sounds like you work for SCO.
Most of the people I've worked with -- the vast majority, above and below me, including presidents, vice-presidents, general managers, directors, managers, and individual contributors, across 10 or more companies I've worked at -- were ethical. There have been some exceptions, but they number at most a half dozen over my 20+ years in the software business.
Actually people deliberatly lie for one reason: to get what they want. If I'm lying to avoid conflict or generate conflict, I'm still lying to get what I want.
Well, well, well, SCO finally lays its cards on the table and what do you know? All jokers, at least all the claims about IBM's contributions to Linux. However, they do make various allegations having to do with IBM's supposed unathorized use of library code developed by SCO:
:-)
Upon information and belief, AutoZone's new Linux based software implemented by IBM featured SCO's shared libraries which had been stripped out of SCO's UNIX based OpenServer by IBM and embedded inside AutoZone's Linux implementation in order to continue to allow the continued operation of AutoZone's legacy applications. The basis for SCO's belief is the precision and efficiency with which the migration to Linux occurred, which suggests the use of shared libraries to run legacy applications on Linux. Among other things, this was a breach of the AutoZone OpenServer License Agreement for use of SCO software beyond the scope of the license.
Hmm, evidence seems a little thin there, actually "suspicion" would be a better word that evidence. Personally, I think SCO is just blowing hot air once again, and that IBM will simply show that and code conversions done in their contract work were done without the help of shared libraries owned by SCO, or if the customer did continue using them, that they had every right to. This should be rather cut and dried has nothing to do with SCO's ownership claims in Linux. It's just another amusing sideshow brought to us courtesy of the clowns at SCO.
The central point of this filing of course is SCO's rejection as "overly broad and unduly burdensome" IBM's question about what specific source code in Linux they think they own rights too. If their goal is to obtain a mistrial by causing the judge to burst an artery laughing, they just might do it
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Unfortunately, I have worked with people who routinely lie and are incredibly dishonest. They've often gotten ahead. The worst are those who are self righteous...which leads them into an even deeper level of deception.
However, in most cases these political drones have cost the companies I worked for tens of millions of dollars. I worked with one company that can point to a pile of dead bodies caused by a self righteous business drone who falsified reports. He went to jail. I hope he is still there.
Anyway, most people who produce quality work tend to be honest and hard working. The US used to have a very strong competitive edge because Americans used to have better ethics.
BTW, not disclosing information you know is not a lie, unless it is in a circumstance where you are expected to disclose the information. For example, my not posting the source code for my employer's product is not a lie. Not telling a customer the percent of commission on a sale is not a lie either.
A CEO should know the quarterly sales figure several days before the quarterly report. His refusal to tell people this figure is not only not a lie, the CEO would be in big legal trouble for disclosing the information early.
A good part of good business is developing channels so that the information is released in a sane and informative manner.
This garbage mindset where we try to turn good business practice into a call for machiavellian maneuvering is absurd. Unfortunately, the poor logical education that we get in the US has our president seeing WMD where there are none, and is lowering our defenses against the political wolves who continually run US businesses down.
Dude, telling lies to raise your stocks isn't a performative act. A major point of Austin's speech act theory is that illocutionary acts are inherently actions, as distinct from constative statements that may simply provoke a desired response. Chapter Ten of How to do Things with Words[1] is entitled "In saying..." v. "By saying..." and makes the distinction pretty clear. It is not correct to say that "in telling lies, Darl raised the stock price of SCO," though it would be fine to say "in telling lies, Darl forwent the moral high ground." It is correct to say that "by telling lies, Darl raised the stock price of SCO," but that doesn't describe an illocutionary act any more than "by reading Austin carefully I came to understand the difference between perlocution and illocution."
:)
Sorry, am I taking this a bit too seriously?
[1] J.L. Austin, How to do Things with Words (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1975) 121-32.
> When you tell Bob you like his pink flannel shirt, are you lying?
> [...] People who don't lie at the right times are called "assholes".
The idea that you have a choice between lying and maliciously making Bob
feel like a loser who can't dress himself is a false dichotomy. It's hard
for geeks, I know, because I have a good deal of trouble with it myself, but
there's this thing called tact: the ability to tell the truth without stirring
up unnecessary trouble. If Bob's new visible-from-space pink-and-orange shirt
makes you want to pulk, telling him you think it's "simply wonderful" is a lie.
Telling him it makes you want to pulk is tactless and needlessly provocative.
Tactful is something along the lines of, "Actually, I rather like the blue
shirt you wore the other day." This is difficult to do on the spot, sometimes,
granted. Especially for people like me who are highly unlikely to have *any*
idea what the person wore yesterday, the day before, or ever. (Heck, I don't
remember what *I* wore yesterday.) Another possible mostly-tactful response
would be, "Oh, Bob, I'm not the one to ask about fashion stuff. I'm no good
at that sort of thing."
I once managed to tell a 40-year-old female coworker who had just had her hair
cut short and asked how we all liked it that I _didn't_ particularly like it,
without hurting her feelings. I told her that I had liked it better the
other way. As it turned out, it just happened that she wasn't really happy
with the cut herself, but with everyone saying how much they liked it she
wasn't going to admit that until someone else said otherwise. Maybe I just
got lucky? Maybe. Or maybe there's something to be said for tact.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.