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.
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...
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.
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!!!
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??
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
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???
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
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
"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
How can 83 lines be copied to only two lines?