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?"
If Novell's letters to SCO are an indication, SCO did not have the license to deny IBM privelege of doing this.
This sig no verb.
So when are any of the 1,500 companies that received letters from SCO inviting them to purchase Linux licenses going to step up and complain to the US Postal Inspectors? To me, SCO committed fraud, misrepresentation, and extortion based upon their communications. Postal fraud is enough to send their entire board of directors to the slammer.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Whenever I read an SCO story, you never hear about the 2.6 kernel. Is this kernel so different that it lacks alleged "IP infringement?" I've heard of specific 2.4 kernels having problems, but none of the recent stuff. Is this an indication that maybe it is safest to go with 2.6 to get SCO off our back?
SCO spend too much time shooting with all the wrong ammo.
In a couple years this be like the browser war. There will be a stack of papers through the roof and no one really cares anymore. SCO will be down the drain, and IBM/linux even M$ will all look like good guys.
So, they are complaining, in part, that IBM tricked them: "They made secret plans, and didn't tell us!"
"Send an Instant Karma to me" - Yes
Well, I was having a look through this 'list' and most of them are meaningless lines that just happen to coincide. Check out this blatant infringement from net/bridge/br_stp.c:43
3
p = br->port_list;
You damned linux hippies, stealing that highly critical line has ruined SCO's business!
http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/bridge/br_stp.c#L4
No need for the party I guess.
Cheers Koz
(BIG)Assuming SCO does own some codes in Linux, and from I can read recently, Linux users seem to claim they can quickly identify those infringing codes, issue a patch and get those codes out of Linux.
This is all fine, but I want to know if SCO can still sue for past damages? E.g. the time span that those unlicensed codes were being abused?
P.S. This is just a question based on the worst case scenario.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
For much of the document, SCO appeared to do little more than highlight IBM's contributions to Linux. They seemed to argue that IBM transferred ideas or programming concepts into Linux rather then cite any specific meaty line by line code examples. One key point that even SCO makes in this document is that these are features that have never been part of Unix. SCO lists a lot of Linux code however they don't seem to be able to list specifically what parts of their code were lifted. A good analogy would be 2 authors writing different books on the same subject. It seemed as if SCO was claiming ownership of the ideas as if they wished they owned the patents to them. When asked what portions of Linux they own, SCO refused stating the request was "overly broad and unduly burdensome". SCO also danced around the issue that they themselves contributed to Linux and distributed the code in question under the GPL by claiming ignorance. Once I heard a joke about someone who claimed ownership of the Brooklyn bridge and tried to sell it. How is SCO claiming ownership of Linux and trying to sell it any different from that situation?
"These have been improperly copied into Linux 2.6.0 at lines 127 (Tab 20) and 201-240 (Tab 21)"
First time I've seen mention of problems in 2.6?
...that this has already gone farther than anyone at SCO anticipated (I'll bet a SCO license that they thought IBM would either settle or buy them out - which was a stupid assumption frankly), and now they are in a position they can neither retreat from (without instantly self-destrcuting in the process, something Boies now has too much of a stake in to allow) or advance with any real hope of winning.
It could almost be seen as a courageous effort if it wasn't so fucktastically stupid.
I'll bet a SCO sitewide license that Darl is starting to regret having ever shown up for this little legal soiree.
They have claimed, under penalty of perjury, in the IBM trial that they do not have a copy of the USL settlement.
Here they make specific claims in reference to the same settlement.
Which is the truth, and which is evidence of perjury?
If you misrepresent a bill, that's fraud. I got something that very much looked like a bill from a regristrar that I don't use. Upon further instection, it turned out it wasn't, it was a form to transfer to them. None the less, the FTC was interested when I sent in a complain and I sent the orignal to them.
Some research turned up that it is ilelgal to send someone a bill for something they don't owe. So, if this license thing declared that a company owed them money for Linux, that would probably qualify.
I didn't know about Groklaw before the whole SCO story, so I can't tell if they've been popular around other circles before, but it seems to me that the SCO case was to Groklaw what the first gulf war was to CNN.
Well, I can make an observation, can I? Don't mod me down!
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
So SCO when backed into a corner and told to "put up or shut up" has a pretty weak case.
That is no surprise to anyone in the IT community.
*BUT*
It is no surprise to SCO__either__. That is why they kept their mouths shut for so long about their evidence ( lack of )
SCO knew this going into the scheme.
The interesting surprise to come is to see how the players from SCO are going to get out of being punished.
They had to see this coming.
In the bush era of no penalties for Worldcom or Enron execs Daryl may be laughing at all of us a few months from now.
Linux may be fully vindicated by then, but maybe so will he/his buddies be......and with the money they made off of this nonsense.
Steve
SCO is "so" full of it that I'm just amazed. Anyone remember Xenix? Well, a long time ago SCO support was in a nutshell $100.00 a question. I called them in regards to the "new" USRobotics HST modem support, and they couldn't figure it out. Guess what? I figured it out myself and like a idiot, sent the fix to SCO. Am I entitled to compensation? Nahhh..., was I credited... nope. This company is lame!
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
Taking out the contractual agreements, etc. the lineage of the UNIX code goes something like this:
AT&T made UNIX and sold it to Novell.
Novell owned UNIX and sold it to SCO.
SCO thought it owned UNIX and licensed it to everyone.
But if we weren't talking about UNIX source code. What if we were talking about a cheap hooker? What if it went something like this:
Brian Roberts (CEO AT&T) nailed Martha.
Brian sold Martha to Jack Messman (CEO Novell).
Jack nailed Martha and sold her to Darl McBride.
Darl nailed Martha, then pimped her out to everyone, then sued them all when Martha got syphilis and HIV.
Life is always a matter of perspective. If we were talking about a whore instead of UNIX code, do you really thing we'd all care?
The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers
Actually, I believe if you look at the timelines, IBM was clearly signalling in interest in pulling out of Monterey about the time of the sale. It can't have been a surprise to then Caldera. Of course, old-Caldera has even less to do with new-SCO than old-SCO had to do with old-Caldera.
Anyway: hogwash. If I have the copyright, I can distribute.
Unless you've entered into a contract and committed not to distribute it, which is what SCO is claiming IBM did. Of course, SCO's legal theory reminds me a lot of this cartoon.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
>what the hell is David Boies doing backing these con artists?
I'm not sure he is. He has yet to appear in court on their behalf. His firm is being paid a great deal of money, win or lose.. my guess is that by contract they have to see this suit to the bitter end. I suspect they signed that contract without knowing both sides of the story. I doubt David Boies personally has any intention of polluting his reputation further with this case. When Kevin (Darl's brother) appeared in court instead of Boies, that was a possible indication that Boies wants to distance himself as much as he can from this case. Darl can't find anyone but his brother (and a couple other well paid,win or lose lawyers) to buy into his crackpot theories on "IP".
I know it was a joke but let me tell you something.
The further up you go in an organization more you lie every day. If you are aprogrammer you might only have to lie once or twice a week.
If you are promoted then you find yourself lying more often because you have to lie both to your bosses and your underlings.
As you go up you may find yourself lying a dozen times a day just to get through.
I imagine a CEO pretty much lies constantly. I bet they don't even know the difference between a truth and a lie anymore.
War is necrophilia.
But technically you're depriving the artist(s) and all the people who get money from the recording, their royalties. (although that still doesn't make sense. hehe)
;D
While i see your point(s), I think we all understand what it means to 'steal code'. The fact of the matter is that we don't have an appropriate term for this act of effortlessly creating a copy of something at no cost to any party. I mean, really, no one was up in arms over 'Replicators in StarTrek'. Would people be forming angry mobs if I could break the laws of physics and duplicate matter at no cost? No, one of three things would happen.
1) I would keep this to myself, and/or selectively help a small number of people.
2) I would duplicate anything for anyone, removing the need for anyone to actually do anything, and our service based society would crumble, since no one would have any reason to do anything for any one else other than their desire to do so.
3) The government would stick me in a mountain bunker and study me. There would be a scandal and a cover up, definitely a book by one of the nice scientists who befriended me and the possibility of a movie deal starring Tom Hanks. After reality tv shows died off, there would be a miniseries on the WB.
Face it. If I could duplicate a BMW M3 ***SHWIZZAM*** all of these litigious fucks would wet themselves and want one too. They're a bunch of hypocrites. They make movies about genies and replicators, and then when these same actions take place online, they cry foul and scream that they are being hurt. It's your fucking society corporate america. You're the ones who have brought it to this. Eat shit!
So, why did it take so long for SCO to produce this?
I can't help but wondering that they wanted to wait until 2.6 was out, thereby ensuring that one more generation of the kernel would be guaranteed to be "tainted". The article was full of references to 2.6.0.
2.6.0 is now in freeze mode and it will be really hard to remove all the lines that SCO alleges are infringement. Had they released this while 2.6 still was 2.5, the community could (at least in theory) have done a halt in development and spend some time on removing these lines.
Even if these lines of code really aren't infringement SCO can argue that they are. If they were removed, they can't even argue that.
SCOs ability to extort large amounts of money is greatly decreased if all people had to do was to upgrade the kernel to 2.6.0 to be out of the woods.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
Old SCO, new SCO, ugh.
Caldera too. Confused yet?
Hell has froze over.
I wanted to see what they were whining about, so I downloaded 2.4.1. None of their line numbers make any sense. They're claiming we copied comments about Linux from them? And blank lines? Am I missing something here??
Don't look here either:
http://ou800doc.caldera.com/LX_uw/CONTENTS.html
Your attitude is infectious...
<ianal>
Whether such code falls under the original UNIX license or not is irrelevant. SCO's claim is that Sequent/IBM agreed under contract terms that any "derivative work" becomes SCO property. It's not unlike GPL, which requires derivative works of GPL code to also be under GPL. But the difference here is that it wasn't written into the UNIX license, per se, but was part of the agreed contract.
That said, we have to look at whether SCO's argument, and the contract terms, are flawed and/or have a loop hole. Suppose the development of the technology at issue here was being done independently. That makes it the property of those who are doing that development, e.g. Sequent and/or IBM. If this technology is subsequently contributed into the UNIX operating systems (Dynix/ptx and AIX), it isn't really a derived work, but rather is a combination or merger. I don't know about Sequent, but IBM most certainly has a lot of other irons in the development fire, including a major operating system (MVS or z/OS) for their mainframe systems, as well as OS/2 from the early PC days, in which this very technology would also be of vital importance. So who's to know (IBM might) whether this technology was developed independently (IBM has lots of R&D people doing this very kind of thing) and just added on to AIX?
Consider it this way. What if I had developed some technology that IBM found would be very good for their operating systems. They come to me to get this technology and I license them non-exclusive rights to use it. Thus, I retain original ownership, but IBM can use it in their products (and pay me royalty). Now suppose they add this technology to AIX. Does that make it a derived work of UNIX and thus belonging to SCO? That's not possible because I retain the original ownership.
Now there are two issues. Did IBM (or Sequent) genuinely develop these things in some independent way, and if so, does the fact that the same company that owns that technology and also signed the contract agreement for UNIX mean that they have to place all the ownership of that technology under UNIX? If IBM put that technology in their mainframe OS, too, then it would look pretty clear that it is an independent development. I'm not so sure about Sequent.
My argument would be that if IBM can put a licensed technology into AIX without it becoming a derived work of UNIX in the case where they license it from someone else, then they can also put technology into AIX without it becoming a derived work of UNIX in the case where the development of it was done independently. And once it is not a derived work of UNIX, IBM is free (as the original owner) to do with it as they please, including making a GPL distribution branch of it for Linux (and this would not in any way mean that the copy of it in AIX is GPL).
I suspect that the case is going to either hinge on something like the above argument, or the fact that the contractual license agreement itself having originally come from AT&T, any rights to so-called "derived works" were dismissed by AT&T long ago.
</ianal>
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I found this as one of the articles on groklaw, but I don't know how to link directly to the article, so I cut and paste it in its entirety:
One More Time -- Contract Dispute, not Copyrights.
Authored by: LionKuntz on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 12:07 AM EST
One more time...
This is presently a CONTRACT DISPUTE, not a copyright dispute. Copyrights are
argued in FEDERAL COURT; this is a Utah State court.
A judge, with no especial technical expertice, is asked to evaluate a flood of
data presented by SCOG, as to completeness of disclosure. This is NOT THE TRIAL
-- this is PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY (different rules and standards of strictness).
In public statements out-of-court, and statements in court pleadings, SCOG
claims that their CONTRACT was breached.
Was it, or wasn't it -- this is FACT, to be determined in TRIAL, not something
to be determined PRE-TRIAL.
The "information" from NOVELL, from AT&T, from SCOG's release of
documents, may be decided out-of-court by armchair jurists, but the law requires
it to be settled inside a courtroom by the rules of evidence in a trial.
A motion to dismiss might be entered and succeed only IF there is some
extra-ordinary evidence OTHER THAN WHAT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO DATE ON GROKLAW.NET.
AS OF TODAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2004, the main case SCOG v IBM has no copyright
infringement element. All out-of-court discussions by SCOG and/or armchair
jurists about copyrights is peripheral to the matter in contest in court.
SCOG's arguments are their "copyrighted" code was used as a platform
for development of extended functionality to AIX/DYNIX, and BY CONTRACT SCOG has
rights to suppression of distribution to extensions to "their"
contract.
UNLESS IBM's legal team (and volunteers in the open community) can turn up clear
evidence that SCOG's code was publically released without copyrights long ago,
THEN the case must proceed onwards to trial next year.
ONLY PROOF of the invalidity of SCOG's copyright claims can shorten the process
-- nothing else other than SCOG's voluntary withdrawal of the lawsuit can
shorten the process. QUESTIONS "OF FACT" MUST BE DECIDED BY TRIER OF
FACT, AS REQUIRED BY LAW. The "Trier of Fact" is the trial with
evidence and witnesses of both sides.
ALL hope for shorter process is doomed to failure, because deep-pockets
Microsoft has endless dollars to throw at this. They have given $8.3 already,
which is equal to what has been spent so far, and nobody knows for certain who
is behind the $50m of Canadian money from another country. One must assume there
is no shortage of funds for SCOG to keep the controversy alive.
The short path to resolution is to invalidate SCOG's claim to valid copyrights
by turning up eyewitnesses who go on record that UNIX was distributed without
proper copyrights affixed, and without a rigorous confidentiality compliance
program between 1968 and 1972.
IF SCOG has claims on a "Public Domain Collection Copyright", rather
than claims on "Original Creative Work Copyright", THEN there can be
no DERIVATIVE RIGHTS possible, AND THEN the CONTRACT DISPUTE based on
DERIVATIVES is terminated -- SCOG has no standing to sue. Case Dismissed.
IBM is evidently pursuing this avenue by demanding all source codes going all
the way back in their discovery actions against SCOG. Hundreds of people can
spend hundreds of hours transcribing filing after filing. If you want your
energy to be fruitful and productive you will ignore all the paper blizzard and
concentrate on finding those eyewitnesses.
They surely exist. Strong clues are in the UNIX histories online.
Probably, the seal on the USL v UC Berkeley case revolve around "trade
secrets" involving how much of UNIX escaped into Public Domain in the early
period.
Besides Berkeley, many universities and many hundreds (if not many thousands) of
students were exposed to UNCOPYRIG
That's the stupidest thing I've heard all day. Changing the code SCO claims to be infringing isn't admitting guilt, it's covering your ass and is perfectly fine.
See, you can copy lines of code, but the original remains. But when you steal market share, it has to be subtracted somewhere. You can steal money and bananas. You cannot steal music and movies.
Uh, yes you can. You steal something when you don't pay for it. You steal owed payment. You steal value (by diminishing it with a copy).
What gets me is that Slashdotters all pretend to be against software piracy, because it hurts their heroes like John Carmack...but music and movies are okay, because we pretend there aren't humans making these things, but faceless monikers ("MPAA," "RIAA"...never mind that these organizations merely represent the people making the content that otheres are ripping off).
This bizarre obsession over the semantics of the word "steal" just shows that Slashdotters try to blur and distract the very valid issue of the illegality of downloading music and movies you have not paid money for. Yes, it is theft. That point is supported morally, ethically, and legally.
A good lawyer to an ingorant judge and jury will make a great case. After all if Linux was so pure and free then why the change?
They must of been hiding something, etc.
Why are they covering their asses? If they are then they have to be guilty.... aka if the glove fits then you have to acquit, etc.
http://saveie6.com/
For those of you who haven't heard the original scream, here is a link for your listening pleasure. Don't let the domain name scare you away; this isn't a trick.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
...what this has to do with my rights while being online?
SCO has maintained that this is about JFS and RCU for about 1 year now. Linus and Linux Distros have had had plenty of time to "mitigate the damages", but has affirmatively chosen not to.
In the unlikely case that SCO wins, you can forget about any damage mitigation.
I thought I had read something on Groklaw stating IBM would have to show SCO the AIX source once SCO complied with the court order to provide IBM with the code in conflict? (30 days, right?)
If so, seems to me that we now likely to get another huge delay as SCO goes through AIX with a magnifying glass looking for - ahem! - SCO's IP (which also shows up in Linux thanks to their former partner from Armonk).
To answer the earlier question, wasn't some of the DYNIX/ptx code delivered to SCO during one of the many court sessions recently? So having put this listing out today strengthens their case to the judge that IBM should now provide AIX source listing ("Hey they gave us DYNIX and look at all this stuff we found. So Judge, please - tell them to hand AIX over - Pronto!).
-Just Another AC-
I personaly do my best to tell to be honest - yet tactful - always because guilt is heavy. When I lie, I always feel like the other person knows I lied, they just can't prove it so they don't say anything. The effect is the same though. That person will never trust you. If you are untrusted, you are friend to none. If have noone - you are sad indeed.
ymmv
If you don't know you are infringing on a copywrite how can they sue? I mean a cease and desist backed by the law seems more than ample, they can't possibly prove the Linux community knew the code was infringing. It's completely absurd, no judge will ever rule that SCO can do anything of the sort, especially when the intellectual property of the Linux community was available for them to check against from day 1. No (canadian anyway) judge would ever even hear this case. Please explain this to me.
When you're too lazy to do your homework, what do you do? You cheat.
... I can say that this assertion is simply wrong. People cheat when they are desparate; when they don't understand what is going on, when they fear failing. The way you notice cheating is not when people do something right, but rather when they do something wrong. People who are clever enough to cheat well will probably observe that it is less trouble to apply their cleverness to simply doing the work, than to cheat effectively; cheating effectively requires considerable effort.
/. and McBride is that very few /. readers would have the spine to stand up and assert something as outlandish as SCO asserts. To /. folk, the SCO business is all very abstract, there's a billion dollars and a corporation at stake ... but it's not our money or our corporation. It's more like the WWF, where there is an official Bad Guy who will, at the end of the evening, get stomped by the Good Guy, for the pleasure of the viewing audience.
As a Genuine University Professor, who has seen a lot of cheating
Petty cheating persists because it is expensive to prosecute. Think about it. In the university setting, for example, faculty are rewarded for bringing dollars and fame --- not for upholding academic standards among their students. If I catch someone cheating on an exam, it is my fervent hope that they will readily admit it, because if they don't, I have to weigh the cost of spending perhaps 40 man-hours (my own time, and others) to deal with an isolated case of petty cheating --- by someone who is almost certainly headed for a dismal grade anyway. People who cheat in class do not get good grades! Seriously! There are steps one can take to make cheating very difficult. For example, if my classes are small enough (under 24 students or so), I try to have an oral final exam. Anyone who can cheat during a one-on-one oral exam, well, they have a very special gift indeed. But I need at least a half hour for each exam, and there is no putting that work off on TA-slaves.
I have run into "malicious" cheaters, but such behavior is very rare --- at least among university students (engineers). Now, it may very well be that CEOs of modern corporations are cut from a different cloth --- Larry Ellison, for example, seems to be the very avatar of acquisitiveness --- but most people are pretty good. And flawed --- sort of like Zoyd Wheeler, in Pynchon's "Vineland."
It's fun to beat up on people who find themselves, through a moment of weakness, in a terrible fix. We have often not bothered to understand their circumstances, nor acknowledge our own role in their predicament. Ronald Reagan, for example, liked to blow hard about the Welfare Queen, a terrible creature which exists in about the same measure as Grendel.
For another example, consider the American Taliban, John Walker. He's a pretty fat target for abuse; but is it so surprising to the nerds of slashdot that someone might do the things that Walker did? And then when someone like Steve Earle writes a sympathetic song about Walker, the derision is turned up to 11. (try this google; most of the entries are either parodies or negative criticism, poisonous "patriotism" or other nonsense.)
If the real case of Walker makes you uneasy, how about the great supernerd John Hackworth in Neal Stephenson's magnificent "The Diamond Age." Hackworth wanted nothing more than to raise his daughter well; he "cheated," got caught in one lie, tried to cover it up, and wound up spectacularly entangled in a series of punishments that lasted over a decade.
So, anyway. It's fun to beat up on SCO, and McBride. One of the differences between most people who read
So, pay attention to the interesting analysis performed by Groklaw-folk, but mod yourself down if you're merely going to hurl abuse at Darl and SCO. This is a tragedy unfolding; a very human tragedy.
Not to mention that the JFS code was originally written for OS/2 before it was ported to AIX.
Yes, and since AIX is a derivate of JFS code, and the JFS code is a derivate of OS/2, wouldn't it then be accurate to say that in some small way, AIX is a derivate of OS/2? And is then OS/2 also bound by the Unix licence now? And any code that it again might have been derived from?
That's how hilariously viral SCOs interpretation is. If the original work became restricted through inclusion in a derivative work, I imagine pretty much all of IBMs codebase would be "tainted". If the licence was what SCO claims it is, anything added to Unix would practically be a work-for-hire for SCO.
Not to mention a certain temporal paradox here. What if IBM had licenced JFS under the GPL before putting it into AIX? Could SCO claim it was a derivative work then? I doubt that. So, assuming you want to avoid any "reverse contamination" like SCO is trying to pull, you should first licence the original work (JFS) to yourself (or a straw firm) under a BSD licence, allowing it to be relicenced. That way the BSD licence would be older and so could impossibly be a derivate of AIX. And so you could GPL it from the BSD licence.
Of course, the above makes no sense. You don't need to BSD licence it to yourself, copyright already gives you all those rights granted by it. But it shows how stupid SCO's claim is.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It is not possible to lie without knowing it. A lie is a knowingly untruthful statement made with the intent of deceiving.
I hope your computer skills are more up to date than your humanities. It's hard to make a living with an abacus these days. First of all, Wittgenstein thoroughly demolished the broad validity of this kind of assertion, but since Wittgenstein is subtle, let's not go there. Far less subtle is JL Austin's insight into the nature of performatives. Darl is clearly engaged in a performative action.
The structure of American capitalism is such that the CEO of an enterprise is legally obligated to maximize shareholder value. If an executive has a performative action available that optimizes shareholder return, he is legally obligated to undertake that performative action. Which then brings us to the thoroughly screwed up notions of jurisprudence upon which this entire mess rests. This is further complicated as the court does not warrant its ability to decide logical propositions competently. The decision procedure of the court is to determine the balance of credibility of an assortment of expert witnesses with a broad mandate to construe the facts however it pleases the party by whom they are engaged.
Now one of the curious things about the obligation of an executive to maximize shareholder value is that it is circumscribed by the competence of the executive. I've not yet seen it argued that a CEO is obligated to step down once he concludes that a different CEO candidate exists who could return value more effectively.
Darl is only obligated to maximize shareholder value within the range of management talents he possesses. From what I've seen, I doubt Darl would have to lie to himself to conclude that his performative actions against IBM have a snowball's hope in hell greater chance of returning shareholder value than anything he might have done within his available talents to extract value from SCO as on ongoing business concern.
As far as the court is concerned, any claim the court might possibly award is a valid pursuit, and to a certain extent, not only is such a claim valid, the pursuit of such a claim can under some conditions be viewed as compelled by the legal obligations of one stakeholder toward another. It would require tremendous powers to argue deceit if Darl is following a compulsory decision procedure fully understood by all parties with ability to sway the outcome.
Class dismissed. We can all return now to our safe and tidy boolean-valued Java universe.
"The Buy Now" Page:
http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/linuxl icense. html
leads to the
How to purchase and activate a SCO IP License" page
http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/howtobu y.html
Step 1:
Review the SCO IP End User Licensing Agreement (EULA) to understand the terms and conditions and rights granted with the SCO IP License. Please click here to review the EULA.
Step 2:
Make your selection of the pertinent SCO IP license for your Server or Desktop system, and purchase by credit card through our online store. Your license will be delivered electronically to the e-mail address specified in your order form.
Step 3:
Register your SCO IP license to complete the legal activation of your license and to receive an electronic copy of the EULA.
Note: you will be required to provide the name of the Server to which the SCO IP License will be applied. Please have this information available when you register your software.
Which links to the EULA Page
http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/eula.ht ml
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSE
(This Agreement is available to all entities using a SCO Operating System distribution)
IMPORTANT, READ CAREFULLY ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU AND IS INCLUDED WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF LICENSE AUTHENTICITY ("COLA"). BY EXERCISING YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THIS LICENSE, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTAND IT, AND YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, DO NOT USE THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREUNDER IN ANY MANNER.
YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT SCO MAKES NO GRANT OF RIGHTS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WITH RESPECT TO ANY SOFTWARE OTHER THAN THE SCO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEFINED BY THIS AGREEMENT.
This Agreement does not include any rights to access, use, modify or distribute any SCO source code in any form under any licensing arrangement.
DEFINITIONS
"Agreement" is the contract between you ("You") and The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), relating to the rights acquired by You. The Agreement comprises (i) this document, (ii) any amendments agreed by both You and SCO in writing and (iii) any additional terms and conditions included in the COLA. Such additional terms may pertain, without limitation, to the following: term, fees and payment, number of permitted CPUs, registration requirements, restriction on runtime environment and transfer of Your rights.
"Code" shall mean computer programming instructions.
"CPU " shall mean a single physical computer processor.
"Desktop System" means a single user computer workstation controlled by a single instance of the Operating System. It may provide personal productivity applications, web browsers and other client interfaces (e.g., mail, calendering, instant messaging, etc). It may not host services for clients on other systems.
"Method" shall mean the human or machine methodology for, or approach to, design, structure, modification, upgrade, de-bugging, tuning, improvement, or adaptation of Code.
"Operating System" shall mean software operating system Code (or Code that substantially performs the functions of an operating system) that is a distribution, rebranding, modification or derivative work of the UNIX(R) operating system or otherwise incorporates Code covered by SCO IP which is not commercially licensed by SCO or one of SCO's authorized licensees.
"System" shall mean a computer system, containing the licensed CPUs, controlled by a single instance of the Operating System.
"Object Code" shall mean the Code that results when Source Code is processed by a software compiler and is directly executable by a computer.
"UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functiona
SCO is not trying to prove whether it had any rights to the unix code that might have been incorporated into the linux kernel. It states simply that it has an agreement with IBM that IBM may not use code from two of their operating systems for anything else.
I can imagine that IBM might have gotten itself ****ed unnecessarily by such an agreement. This means I see a chance that SCO can win
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
-
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...
Changing or removing the alleged infringing core wouldn't be an admission of guilt at all. Especially since the linux coders have been saying for about a year now to let them know what's infringing and it'll be removed ASAP. In fact, not removing it would give SCO even more ammunition.- "You see Judge, we told you those Linux hackers don't care about anyone's IP or Copyrights. They said they'd remove the infriging code ASAP after we identified it and now they've changed their minds and won't do so."
Overlooking the fact that not removing it isn't admitting guilt either, this would do nothing to endear us to the judge, making the legal battle harder than it has to be.One final thought, I'm sure that SCO would absolutely LOVE for the kernel hackers to wait until the lawsuits are resolved to fix the alleged infringing code. Why that'd have the kernel in limbo until the lawsuits were resolved, and that could be 2010 as slow as the justice system can be added to the fact that SCO has already shown it wants to drag this out as long as possible.
Screw whether they're really infringing or not, lets get that code out of the kernel and replaced with new code that cannot have SCO (or another company/individual like SCO) raising a stink over it infringing their IP or copyright. SCO can play in the courts until their money runs out, and Linux will move on and likely become much stronger for it. Who knows, this might help the kernel hackers to think of new, innovative ways to code the same things that are actually faster/more secure/more stable/etc!
Note that this is not a joke. It is true. They even referenced the blank lines 30 and 33.
I think it's safe to say SCO lost Autozone due to SCO's efforts. I had a phone interview with Autozone for an SA position (not under NDA, as it never reached the "come into the office" stage). The interviewer was almost begging me to take the job, saying they had an on-site person from SCO to fix all the problems they were having on SCO Openserver on the server side of their setup. Apparently they were paying $BIG_BUCKS for the SCO person (iirc, it was typical business-to-business consulting rates at the time) and weren't seeing satisfactory results, so they wanted to try their luck on the open market.
Since SCO had recently announced EOLing Openserver in favor of Unixware, I saw working with Openserver as a bad career move (that, and I had worked with Linux and Solaris at the same time I gained experienced with Openserver and liked both much, much better). I suggested to the interviewer that they consider migrating to a better OS, such as Linux. I wouldn't be surprised if they heard this from quite a few people, as after I saw your comment, it piqued my interest enough to check, and Red Hat announced picking up the contract in late November 1999 - http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/1999/press _autozone.html
So, congrats to Autozone for taking my advice. :-)
So, anyway. It's fun to beat up on SCO, and McBride. One of the differences between most people who read /. and McBride is that very few /. readers would have the spine to stand up and assert something as outlandish as SCO asserts. To /. folk, the SCO business is all very abstract, there's a billion dollars and a corporation at stake ... but it's not our money or our corporation.
I would think that very few slashdotters would be able to imagine what kind of attitude it takes to run even a company the size of SCO, much less one of the larger ones. I know that I can't.
Put identity in the browser.
you are wrong... pathological liars can and do lie without knowing it as they tell that lie so many times it becomes real to them.
You never worked in a sales department before, sales = lying here in the USA. I remember back in the early 90's a freidn was trying to get rid of all his friends by selling AMWAY products. I asked him about the stuff and he said "it's all top quality and I use it every day!" asking his wife, "it's utter crap, he has to wash with regular soap AFTER using the amway soap. and he's said that line so many times he now actually believes it."
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
This clearly shows the intent of the contract, and demostrates that newSCO's ultra-viral interpretation is, how can I put it, big dog's cock.
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
How can 83 lines be copied to only two lines?
That is a magnificent summary of useful quotations. As I am currently employed in a sinister hell-hole of backstabbing and schemes, I shall eagerly put them to use.
I am but a poor SA, and have been struggling to survive with no natural defenses.
1) AIX is a derivative of Unix
2) IBM agreed not to distribute derivatives of Unix
3) IBM broke that agreement
One could argue that IBM developed new techniques and put them in both Unix (AIX) AND Linux. IBM didn't contribute a derivate of Unix, only some technology that IBM developed and had previously used in a derivative of Unix. Even if it was a breach of contract to place them in Linux (which seems a stretch to me), it does not mean SCO owns those files - they are not claiming ownership (copyright) on those files. They're not even claiming it's SCO trade secrets, as SCO wasn't even aware what IBM had until it appeared in Linux (IBM trade secrets maybe until realeased by IBM). I therefore can not see reason to sue Linux end users or distributors even if SCO wins.
That's just the way I see it.
a) They would feel quite guilty in lying, especially depending on the degree of the lie and those involved - so that it would eat at them morally
b) They'd spend an overly large amount of time wondering if/when they will get caught at the lie, and weighing the consequences of getting caught in s omething improper now or getting caught later and also caught lying.
Again, it all depends on the degree of the lie. Telling your fiancee the diamond is real Vs telling her that you like her meatloaf are two different things (you can choose which is worse... one can end up having you dumped, the other a longterm supply of meatloaf *shudder*)