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?"
Well, first of all, I think that if Darl did know he was lying and was lying, that's even worse.
Clearly, he lied. Now if he is an unconscious liar, and doesn't realize when he's lying, then we're really in trouble.
Because, absolutely, it was a lie. They said he knew SCO code was there.
So I hope he knew he was lying, because if he didn't, and just went in some kind of crazy, psychological breakdown, then we are really in trouble.
Clearly, you know, I'm a minister. Why do people lie? Because they're liars. He is lying in this case; he's lied several times. I believe he lied about IBM.
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.
C'mon, who wants to pull an all-nighter and see how many of these infringing lines we can have changed by the morning?
And I wasted all my karma whoring, funny, anti-SCO lines on the OTHER SCO story today!
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
who wants to bet SCO sues the government next for not agreeing with them that its infringment of IP...
And then we're looking in stdio.h, and then stdlib.h, and ustat.h, utmp.h, zlib.h, tux.h, hesiod.h!!!
g hh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaa!!!
And then odbcinst.h, random.h, utime.h, umsdos_fs.h! And reboot.h, reiserfs_fs.h, irda.h, and errno.h!!!
All the way to the kernel source code!
Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
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?
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$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers
SCO spend too much time shooting with all the wrong ammo.
In a couple years this be like the browser war. There will be a stack of papers through the roof and no one really cares anymore. SCO will be down the drain, and IBM/linux even M$ will all look like good guys.
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.
-I am an elective eunuch.
This computerworld story seems to have it sorted out:
1) AT&T licenses SysV to IBM and Sequent
2) IBM writes a bunch of cool enterprise level stuff for their flavor of SysV, and acquires Sequent
3) AT&T writes a letter to their newsletter ($echo) saying their license doesn't cover the derivative stuff, just the basic system
3) IBM eventually kicks their stuff into Linux
6) SCO buys up all the old licenses
7) SCO says the work is derivative after all, and they ownzors it
At some point the chewbacca defense starts to look a lot more rational.
What a strange bird is the pelican, his beak can hold more than his belly can.
People deliberately lie for two reasons: To get what they want, and avoid conflict. I think he falls into the first category. He sure as hell doesn't belong in the second.
Mod "Overrated" instead of replying "I disagree with you," you coward.
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
Bull. Not even SCO is claiming it's their code (IANAL, but I'm fairly sure about that). They're claiming that it's IBM's code, but the terms of IBM's UNIX license agreement didn't allow them to release it under GPL.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
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.
How is it (or am I dumb and reading things wrong) that a single line of code winds up being infringing. Am I infringing if I write 'for (x=1; x 10; x++) {}? It's like sawing I'm infringing if I write... 'The other day I was talking to my 1 year old about my friend Dick. This is what I said. See Dick.' Am I crazy, or simply misguided?
Developing Retail Point-of-Sale Software
(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.
I'm not fond of any of these legal actions, etc. I can't say I have much faith in the justice system when it comes to corporations and the like. Especially after the MSFT wrist slap.
:)
What we folks believe to be obviously false can often be bounced back and forth in the courts then spit out as true. Call it cynicism...but enough optimism to hope that IBM/Novell stomps SCO down.
As far as changing/rewriting the code specified here, let's put that off until some sort of verdict. Unless of course you want to do it as a learning experience -- or maybe help out the HURD or something.
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?
Now it's not clear if they're claiming it's the implementation that's infringing (it's not exactly a hard function to code), or the interface.
If it's the latter, they're clearly in the wrong since that interface dates back to 4.2 BSD. Much of their evidence seems rather circuitous, relying on things like individual contributors having worked on Dynix in the past. Also, for relatively simple stuff, there's only one optimal algorithm, so unless they can demonstrate things like identical variable names (above a certain length), they don't have a case (in an ideal world..).
"The slave who knows his master's will and does not get ready...will be be beaten with many blows."Luke 12:47-48
On another source code front, I found the Windows Source Code here although I don't think the guy hosting the site is gonna like getting his server hosed by slashdotters....
(yea, a repeat from the OTHER SCO story...)
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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...
"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.
There once was a man from Utah
He wanted to wreck our future
He ran out of luck
And then went bankrupt
So they then took away his 'puter
There once was a man named Darl
He had a real evil snarl
He sent us a notice
But his claims our bogus
And now we wait for his fall
There once was a man from SCO
He had nowhere to go
He went real beserk
Now nothing will work
And soon he will say UH OH!
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
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?
Not to mention that the JFS code was originally written for OS/2 before it was ported to AIX.
No sig, sorry.
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!
SCO Submits
Stolen IP to the Court
Court Laughs Hard; Craps Pants.
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.
Chewbacca Defense
Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee - an eight foot tall Wookiee - want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!
What does that have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!
None of this makes sense.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
derived from either AIX or Dynix/ptx If they can't determine specifically which operating system the alleged infringement came from, then what are the grounds for their law suit in the first place? It's more like a fishing expedition. This is analagous to Joe open source coder filing a lawsuit against Microsoft because "we beleive Windows may contain GPL licensed code."
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
"I started my blog just before the SCO case was filed. Originally, my purpose was just trying to learn how to blog, because an attorney and I were discussing the possibility of me doing some telecommuting work for him, including work on his blog
/. [Slashdot] comments about legal news and most of the comments would be way off, and I realized that there is a hunger for someone to explain what it all means, what the process is, how things play out, to people who aren't in the legal field.
[...]
My thought then was to try to explain legal news stories as they came along. I was forever reading
[...]
I didn't think too many people would ever read it, except I thought maybe IBM might find my research and it'd help them. Or someone out there would read it and realize he or she had meaningful evidence and would contact IBM or FSF. I know material I have put up can help them, if they didn't already know about it. "
So in short, yes.
Cue The Sun...
It is not possible to lie without knowing it. A lie is a knowingly untruthful statement made with the intent of deceiving.
So ... if Darl is an unconcious liar, perhaps it is because somebody just hit him on the head with a clue-stick? Or perhaps he just got side-swiped by SCOX's falling share price?
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
There once was a young slashdot reader
Who utterly failed to grasp meter,
And didn't have time
To understand rhyme --
So even the FPs were 1337er!
sulli
RTFJ.
There you go! This SCO thing is really just a plot by the Linux kernel development group to force everybody to upgrade to 2.6! (Hey, it makes as much sense as the claims made on slashdot that Microsoft intentionally released NT4.0 and Win2K to justify an early end of life for those products!)
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
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
Note to Daryl: Sue the OS/2 users too.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
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
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
http://www.temporal-acuity.net/sco/SCO.jpg
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.
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.
What??? Let's examine the term. Original Code. Implication : the original author decided to release it under GPL. Subsequent modification of this code (i.e., derivitave work, lay term: modification, update, bug-fix, etc.) must be released as well. To imply that code written which leverages the code (e.g., accessing a DLL) is derivative is simply stupid. Is SCO under obligation to disclose all networking code because they leverage samba in their distro? Obviously not. If they modify samba to fix something for their distro's quirks, then do they have to release the code. Likely, but this is more interesting question. GPL basics. If you want to use my code and improve on it or make it do something additional, you have to release your source, too. If you don't want to do this. Write all of the code YOURSELF. You cannot decide ex post facto to dictate your licensing terms. Terms are explicit (or implied) when you distribute. Are you an Anonymous Coward from the sco.com domain. Your comments are so obtuse that I need an asprin.
Developing Retail Point-of-Sale Software
DON'T LOOK!
This publicly available Caldera documentation could contain items including but not limited to proprietary, unpublished SCO code, copyrights, trade secrets, and/or patents!
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Let's see, he's:
Prosecuted Microsoft (Antitrust)
Defended Napster
Represented Gore in 2000
Now his name is hung on the SCO case, and I have to wonder - is he famous for losing? The only thing missing is prosecuting O.J.
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!!!
From South Park, Episode 214 "Chef Aid"
Judge Moses: Mr. Johnny Cochrane, your closing argument.
Johnny Cochrane: Ladies and Gentlemen of this deposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe his client wrote Stinky Britches ten years ago, and they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself. But Ladies and Gentlemen of this deposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider.
[Walks up to a chart stand]
Johnny Cochrane: Ladies and Gentlemen, (Pulls down picture of Chewbacca) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wooky from the planet Kishic, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense.
Gerald (Whispering): Dammit.
Chef (Whispering): What?
Gerald (Whispering): He's using the Chewbacca defense.
Johnny Cochrane: Why would a Wooky, an eight-foot-tall Wooky, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense. But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case.
[Jury stares in silence]
Johnny Cochrane: Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case.
[Gerald sinks back and covers his eyes]
Johnny Cochrane: It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I'm am not making any sense. None of this makes sense. And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this deposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit. The defense rests.
[Silence]
Judge Moses: OK then.
Unixware has never achieved a substantial market share
Another quote, again no mention of _copyrights_
X/Open introduces the UNIX 95 branding programme. Novell sells UnixWare business to SCO
nwfusion makes this interesting distinction:
1992 - Purchases rights to AT&T UNIX
1995 - Sells Unixware to Santa Cruz Operation
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
If someone tells you they are a pathological liar, should you believe them?
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
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??
So out of curiousity I randomly looked at some of the lines mentioned and according to SCO .. Lines copied:
init/main.c (Tab 18) 30-33
30
31 #include <asm/io.h>
32 #include <asm/bugs.h>
33
But ofcourse..
[alk]
SCO lost Autozone to IBM's Linux efforts. They're a huge auto parts distribution chain with about 6,000 stores the last time I looked - I used to work for a much smaller competitor of theirs that went bankrupt in the mid nineties.
m
Target has *within the last month* told SCO to go pound sand and done a deal with IBM for Linux conversion. I'm not sure how many locations they have - does anyone have that info handy? Please post if you do.
Sherwin Williams I know less about than either of the other two but IBM has helped SCO to the door there, too.
I hope Darl & company get prosecuted but I feel bad for the SCO troops - this is exactly the same behavior (pump & dump) I saw with the auto parts supplier where I worked in the mid nineties. I wrote a perl script that calculated severance for 4,000 employees and the scumbag behind the whole scheme went right into something much nicer than unemployment and vocational training:
http://www.corporateexpress.com/Mark_Hoffman.ht
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
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.
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.
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!
An excellent point, and worth re-reading.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I have implied this in previous posts, There's no one left at SCO that can read or interpret their code or anyone else's for that matter.
Just a bunch of "Suits" and Attorneys "stroking" each other into believing that they know what they are talking about when it comes to deciphering "OUR Source Code".
Like hiring your local butcher to do brain surgery! "The operation was a success,the patient died." RIP SCO!
Wow. Next thing you know you'll tell me Apple is making a version of iTunes for Windows.
The ______ Agenda
If a someone is a they then I think that person has bigger problems than lying.
<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
states that AT&T has no interest or title in works derived from or used with UNIX. I remember reading this someplace.
So SCO has no case.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
SCO Group announced today that the Open source community had code to create progams of mass infringement.
"We will find this code of Mass Infringement," A SCO spokesperson said. "They've got to be hiding the code somewhere. It's just a matter of time before we find it."
Last year SCO Group waged war against the Open Source Community claiming that it had Code of Mass Infringement.
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.
What about people who tell the truth? Why do they do that?
FreeBSD
OpenBSD
NetBSD
Darwin
FreeDos
Windows 2000
Windows NT
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
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this [points to presentation board] is a Penguin. It lives in very cold places and swims in near freezing waters. That does not make sense. Why would any animal live in such cold places, when clearly, a nice tropical beach would be a much nicer place to live?! It does not make sense! What does this have to do with copyright infringement? NOTHING! It does not make sense! A penguin lives in cold places, and it does NOT make sense. None of this makes any sense. If a penguin does not need mits, you must ACQUIT!
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Since 100% of their claims are related to AIX and Dynix code, and they DIDN"T show that the code in question is derived from SysV, 100% of their claims are already disproven. All they've shown is that IBM contributed IBM code to Linux. Everyone already knew that. 10 Seconds.
They couldn't think up a lie quick enough.
Free as in mason.
Hear me out... There are some questions that need to be decided by a court (not withstanding the particulars of SCO v IBM). 1) What constitutes a derivative work with regards to software? and 2) Exactly how enforcable is the GPL? I think the first question is difficult to discuss, but the second should be pretty quick and easy.
It'll be good IMHO to get a court to say that the GPL is just fine and perfectly enforcible, and to put down a real, legal test for derivative software.
Any disagreement?
Developing Retail Point-of-Sale Software
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.
I would make that more general since a lie can be an implied untruth in a conversation. So, I'd simplify that definition to be this:
A lie is an act of communication that is intended to deceive someone.
For example, let's say that Ainsley Hayes just received a hurtful boquet from a couple coworkers. The boquet came with a card that has only the "B" word on it. Let's also say that you (another coworker in the West Wing) know who hand-delivered the boquet. Someone has just asked you, "Do you know who sent this boquet?" One possible lie would be: "No, I have no idea." (A direct, untrue statement.) Another more subtle lie would be to make a statement of truth that implies a lie: "I didn't see a name on the card." This answer to the question implies the statement: "No, I don't know who sent it, though I did check the card to see if I could find out." I consider both of these options to be lies because they were both made with the intent to bring about the same act of deception.
Of course, it's not a lie if someone "reads between the lines" and assumes something untrue that you didn't intend to convey. That would be a mistaken communication rather than a lie.
..wayne..
So they don't have to remember every lie they ever told - which they have to do in order to avoid being sprung, and TSG hasn't been doing so well at this recently.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
That is entirely the wrong question. IBM wrote the code. IBM owns the code. IBM contributed the code. SCO is *claiming* that doing so violates some contract IBM has with them. The burden of proof lies on them. The question is NOT what "licence" IBM has from SCO to release their own stuff under the GPL. (you don't need a "license" to do what you please with stuff you wrote yourself.) The question is, what evidence does SCO have that IBM is, infact, violating some agreement with them by doing as it does.
You have the right to remain silent. Any Linux server you access could be used against you in a court of SCO. Seriously, 60% (at least) of all servers on the Internet are powered by Linux or some other free UNIX variant. They could range from e-mail to ftp, web and so forth. Imagine uploading files to your personal website which is on a Linux server only to find that the site doesn't exist anymore because of SCO's legal threats. It does affect your rights online.
"More than 1,107 Target stores operate in 47 states"
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
While we're arguing about this, I'd like to remind people that they might want to check if their mutual funds are any of the ones listed below - because you'll be taking a bath soon enough: My intreptation of the financial stats.
Top mutual funds with [bad] holdings of SCOX:
Bjurman, Barry Micro-Cap Growth Fund
ING Inv Tr-Ing/Capital Guardian Small Cap Port
Royce Technology Value Fund
Oberweis Micro-Cap Portfolio
Top SCO institutional stock holders:
Capital Guardian Trust Company
Royce & Associates, Inc.
Integral Capital Management Vi, LLC
Bjurman, Barry & Associates
Empire Capital Partners LP
Vanguard Group, Inc. (The)
In the two months, it appears two more large scale insider stock dumps have been perpetrated (in addition to the previous months HUGE insider stock dumps):
VP GASPARRO, LARRY 5,259 shares
Director RAIMONDI, THOMAS P., JR. 11,841 shares (exercised option @$1.12/share - nice dump) $210,000 pocket change!
Most obnoxious co-conspirator to the stock scam:
Deutsche Securities - issuing an analyst recommendation "buy" on SCOX - they are probably also helping to launder money that's feeding the SCO legal campaign I bet.
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.
- lying bastards
- code stealers
- stock dumpers
- thieving lunatics
- satan's children
- backstabbing assholes
- raving madmen
- poor losers
- fraudulent claims
- microsoft's puppet
And just for a little fun, random assortments:Feel free to add your own and try to get Google to link to them under many bad terms. This is just done as humor, and once SCO closes shop or is absorbed by a company who just wants everything to stop from McBride and his bad of insane asylum rejects, there's no need for us to continue. The misunderstandings that they perpetuate must in turn be restructured against them if we can't correct them. Remember, only you can stop FUD. Only you.
Too right. I was quietly chuckling at an ad the other day. A soothing voice explaining how 'our' commitment to something or other was feeding the starving millions and curing cancer and ultimately guaranteed peace for all mankind or something and then suddenly there's the Microsoft logo and I'm like 'WTF?', you guys aren't bringing me any peace at all, you just make me really angry and .... oops sorry.
Now wash your hands.
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.
Thanks for the information. However,
i) SCO has added a complaint of copyright infringement. See Groklaw.
ii) The case is being heard by Judge Dale Kimball in *Federal* court, not Utah state court. So, the court is perfectly entitled to rule on copyrights.
iii) As for the process being long or short, who knows. However, it seems unlikely to be very long if SCO fails to bring any evidence to discovery, as has been the case so far.
So, your cut-and-paste review is inaccurate in a couple of instances, but let's see what happens.
Repeat after me:
/evil laugh! 8-)
"I have no _informed_ opinion."
"I don't care who is at fault here, lets all blame it on me and then fix it." (used liberally when things are *not* your fault will buy you lots of credits for when something finally *is* your fault.)
"I was just wasting time, malingering, you know, 'leaning on my shovel'..." (A certian amount of this is expected in any job, it's just human nature. Never try to hide it. People stop trying to catch you out if you don't hide it. Done right, you can out-malinger everybody else at the company with impunity. Of course, then it gets to easy, even boring, and you end up out working everybody else becase excessive slacking sucks.)
"Your question presumes facts not in evidence." (always phrased exactly this way, this is the only answer to the "when did you stop beating your wife?" backhand accusation.)
"I blew the time/cost esitmate."
"I am not at liberty to say."
"May I direct you to sales/the VP of development/etc."
"Sorry, I must be an idiot, I didn't mean to infer (whatever)."
"We have decided the best course is (whatever)." (even when you disagree completely, if the collective has spoken, own your place as mouth-piece.)
and finally, on occasion: "Is this the part where I list all the reasons that this is supurbly a bad idea?"
There is virtually no professional condition that requires one to tell a lie. People lie to squirm from the uncomfortable. A well placed and disarming truth is almost invariably more effective. So is keeping your trap shut (as skill The Daryl seems to lack 8-).
Moreso, a proactive truth can prevent the lie-inducing circumstance. Walk into your boss' office and say "I just lost two days because I stupidly copied the backup over the new work instead of the other way around. Damn I feel like an idiot."
There is only one lie that some meaningless jobs require you to tell, namely: "I'd be happy to assist you sir."
Besides, if you get a reputation for never lying, when you finally need to lie it is that much easier...
Seriously, the first one, "I have no informed opinion," is the most useful. This is the phrase to pull out when someone is trying to "manuver you" into making statements you know are incorrect. It has many variants but the core meaning that must be carried is that guessing now, and then being held to that guess, is not a circumstance you care to enter into. It can be followed by a "if you need me to make a total guess, then I can, but following that guess as cannon would probably be ruinous."
In point of fact, once you present yourself as a "dificult target" you will be spared virtually all of the political games at work. Then, somehow, you become "the nutral party" as if by magic, and you suddenly become privy to all manner of things.
Finally, don't _spread_ gossip... rant publically if necessary, but always be known as the guy who will say to the face anything he would say to a backside. Listen to the gosip of others when necessary, but take it with a grain of salt. The answer to "did X say Y to you?" is (unless "Y" is a promise of felonious activity) "X and I rant to one another about all sorts of things."
And so on.
As long as you are never cruel or bitter (beyond need 8-) you really never need to lie.
We *remember* being lied to because we remember catching out the lie. That alone is proof that the lying is unsustainable.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
"Actually people deliberatly lie for one reason: to get what they want."
Actually, people do all things for only one reason: to get what they want. It's kind of a non-argument. Even behavior one would consider self-destructive or sacrificial serves some kind of internal need/desire (or is made in ignorance, with the belief that it serves a need or desire).
For example, if a guy pushes someone out of the way of a bus so that he gets hit instead - a pretty selfless act - he either thought he could save the person without getting hit, or he preferred to get hit over the other person. Or, more accurately, there was some risk, and the reward of feeling good about himself, being exhalted as a hero, or any number of things outweighed the perceived risk.
So, either people deliberately lie for one sort-of-meaningless reason (to get what they want), or for one or more of an innumerable list of reasons at the level above that (increase wealth, avoid blame, make one's self look good, avoid conflict, generate conflict, ad infinitum...).
-If
Addendum: I suppose things get fuzzier when you talk about brainwashing. Someone can be made to want things that they originally didn't want through all sorts of various manipulations. It doesn't really change the above, people still always act to get what they want, but what they want can be manipulated.
Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!
This document does not indicate SCO-owned source code that has been copied into Linux. This document is SCO outlining IBM-owned source code that we all knew they had donated to Linux. That IBM's RCU and XFS were existing technologies is well known.
This lawsuit is not about whether the copying took place - it did. It is about whether IBM has the right to use code they developed internally (or purchased from those who developed internally) from thier own version of UNIX into whatever they want. SCO's claim is that anything that was used with UNIX in the past is somehow a UNIX derivative.
None of this is about SCO claiming to own this code (yet, anyway) - they claim the right to prevent it's use in Linux, because it was first used with UNIX. This is the "hook" of the lawsuit that anyone who would find for SCO would have to swallow. Historic AT&T, Modern Novell and just about everyone who has looked at the facts understand that using two things together doesn't make one derived from the other, and presumably a judge will be able to understand this as well.
It reminds me of a tv-shopping ad I once saw, where some guy was selling a "computer program" that did a (phonetic I think) search in the hebrew version of the bible. ;)
As examples, he said that the word "Hitler" is somewhere in the bible and some other interesting buzzwords. Perhaps IBM should use this program to search for prior art in some other ancient scripture?
Darl went after IBM because it was the most outrageous thing to do.
Every move SCO has made has been made to be more outrageous than the one before. They're stirring the pot. They want dissension in the open source camp. They want distraction. They want to rattle people. The more preposterous the claims, the better. They want to kill open source - destroy Linux and Linus both. This is straight by the book Halloween Documents. It's so bloody obvious.
And they're doing it because somebody's told them to. They have absolutely nothing to lose, and a promise that if they keep it up just a little bit longer...
Somebody is already planning their early retirement...
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.
From :- http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/gove rnment/legalissues/story/0,108 01,90205,00.html
It looks like AT&T may have put another nail in SCO's coffin - interesting timing!
Get your licenses here!
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.
This one small quote confuses me..
"These have been improperly copied into Linux.."
If the code was copied wrong, how would it function? Could it be possible that a person wrote code similar to what another has done? I always thought that if code was wrong, the program would have problems. That could be why Linux users don't have the crash issues as Windows users. The code is not correct.
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.
It's more like the WWF..
C'mon Professor, you know you want to see an MTV DeathMatch between Linus and McBride! Admit it!
Sig it.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with the source code in question - we did.
winks at Darl McBride
But you can't hold a whole company responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole development system? And if the whole development system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of all operating systems in general? I put it to you, Darl - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
Leads the Linux community out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
It is still a tragedy of greed, not despair. Or why does Darl and his people need to be multimillionaires instead of simple, honest-to-God millionaires?
Does it take a spine to lie for power and profit, surrounded by sycophants?
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
I scanned through the lists, and found quite a few single line entires in the table. I decided to look one up, specifically net/bridge/br_stp.c. Here's the offending line:
p = br->port_list;
If it wasn't for the history behind this, I'd have to laugh out loud. The only conclusion I can come to is that the majority of the claim comes from structure/union definitions in header files, and they extend it to C files wherever a structure/union member is referenced.
If I get some time, I may do an analysis of the list and determine exactly how little this case actually has to do with IP theft.
once he concludes that a different CEO candidate exists who could return value more effectively.
The purpose of a CEO is to return a value? Shit, I can do that in a line of C! They should hire me!
Bow, nigger. h
So they can sleep at night.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
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.
SCO didn't buy anything from Novell.
SCO claims to have bought some rights from 'Santa Cruz Operations' (a.k.a. Tarantella). [In their press releases they *pretend* to be the same company, but they are *not*).
In the IBM court filings they say that they *can not find* the papers about what they bought from Santa Cruz Operations.
Because of the similarities of the names of those two companies the press hasn't cought on to the fact that SCO in fact can't show that they are the legitimate owner of any of Novells rights.
You don't do what whatever crackpot on the street tells you to do if you believe you are in the right.
If somebody has an issue with your actions they need to negotiate with you or to force you to change your ways. Since SCO has not negotiated (hint: they have nothing to negotiate, they own nothing in Linux, their plan was to make money, not to correct a legal problem) then the Linux developpers should be told by a court of law that there is actually an infringement.
I will never submit to the first idiot telling me I am infringing on his rights if I believe the claim to be untrue, Linux developpers should do similarly.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
In that 1985 copy of $ echo, AT&T said they would "assure licensees that AT&T will claim no ownership in the software that they developed -- only the portion of the software developed by AT&T." In a recent Computerworld article, Frank Hayes calls that a clarification of the license's derivative-works clause:
Long story short, if SCO inherited from Novell the rights Novell inherited from AT&T, SCO has no claim over derivative works, only over the original AT&T code, and, of course, whatever they have written themselves.
This is not my sandwich.
How can 83 lines be copied to only two lines?
If you want to reduce it to that level, people do everything they do in order to get what they want. Of course, this doesn't provide much insight into motivation, nor does it take a great deal of cleverness to figure it out. It's a singularly uninteresting observation. But it is true.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
They want dissension in the open source camp.
Alright, I want you to post more sentries. And tell the men their wine ration is halved. Tell the centurions any discipline problems are to be dealt with harshly!
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
Anyway, the point you spectacularly failed to get was that I wasn't commenting on just one article, I was talking about that article in the context of the long list of public claims by newSCO, which are currently of great importance due to IBM's Lanham act claims.
Does that answer your question?
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Which raises the question, What license did SCO have from Novell to disallow this?"
This is answered in a 1985 issue of AT&T's $ echo publicaction, which specifically says in a derivitive work, the UNIX source remains the property of AT&T, and the licensee's code remains the property of the licensee.
IOW, SCO has nothing to disallow this. Those technologies belong to IBM, period. SCO can't use them in their own product without permission from IBM, and IBM can use them as they see fit.
It is a commonly made argument by people (who tend to be left-leaning) that it is important to understand the circumstances under which someone cheats.
Here that is just stupid. Either Darl & Co. have a legit claim (which I doubt, due to their continuing refusal to actually demonstrate it), or they are trying to extort through misuse of process.
I don't care what circumstances caused them to decide to misuse process. I do care that this is causing a problem for a potentially excellent alternative to windows, a problem that is almost as big as the swamp of licencing XFree is in now.
To claim that it is important to consider motivations and circumstances is a falacy grounded in a twisted ad hominem (feel sorry for me and give me stuff) argument.
And if you want a Literary Reference... try Darl McBride as Peter Keating (The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand) -- a person without the ability to create who continually hijacks the efforts of those who can.
Developing Retail Point-of-Sale Software
If have noone - you are sad indeed.
The loners of this world disagree.
So they can sleep at night.
So you say they lie in their sleep?
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.
Is stock price in dollars the prescribed measure of "shareholder value"? Does the law provide for measures of company reputation, etc. as components of shareholder value?
Actually, it IS true. You even say so yourself.
Before you despise me for the (non-existent) silver spoon in my mouth, perhaps you should take a moment to understand what I actually said and address that instead. Nothing I said denies that choices are often restricted. I merely pointed out the obvious: when forced to choose, people choose the option which they believe will give them the most of what they want.
Note that "what they want" is not always synonmous with happiness or pleasure. It certainly doesn't imply that life is a bed of roses. A mother who goes hungry in order that her children may eat wants to eat herself, but she wants to see her children fed more.
The post that I replied to was moderated as +5, insightful, for pointing out that people lie to get what they want. The whole point of my post was to show that this line of reasoning is essentially a tautology, and isn't insightful at all. You echoed this yourself in your last paragraph. Why you felt the need to take exception to my post when you apparently agree with it is a bit puzzling to me.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
SCO clearly admits that the code that IBM allegedly agreed not to share was created by IBM! I understand that they are claiming copyright protection to derivative works, but doesn't this greatly weeken their claim that IBM gave away trade secrets since this is code that IBM clearly wrote?
Until SCO can get a detailed response from IBM, it's difficult for SCO to prove that IBM gave code they wrote for AIX and Dynix/ptx to Linux, since they can't prove that IBM didn't write the code for Linux and then put it into AIX and Dynix/ptx. Without knowing who wrote each line and when and for what purpose, you can't say for sure whether or not code portions SCO highlighed are not a derivative of Linux.
Then, if any code was written with for both IBM's Unix and Linux, then which is it a derivative of? Clearly, IBM was writing code for both platforms, and some of it was bound to overlap. If a developer who wrote the code at IBM was trying to ensure it worked in both platforms, then isn't it, by SCO's definition of derivation, both a derivative of Linux and Unix?
Is there a legal precedent in copyright court cases for when product A (code in question) is a derivative of BOTH product B (AIX) and C (Linux), product B is a derivative of product D (SCO Unix), and owner of product D claims that product A cannot be a derivative of anything other than product B, and this should not have been part of product C, which it was also a derivative of?
SCO's whole ability to sue Linux users is based on copyright of the code in question. Yet both copyright and trade secrecy allegations seem to pinge on this concept of just how far derivative works can be defined.
This case seems to be defining them in contractual terms. Yet even the contractual claims cannot avoid addressing who owns the copyright of "derivative" works. To what extent does copyright law support it in complicated scenarios like this?
Add to that that user of product C (Linux binaries) has no knowledge of product B (Unix source).
When SCO and Novell copyrighted Unix source code, did either of them actually include the lines of code that IBM wrote? Was this all backported into Unix System V? If so, should we be suing SCO for infringement of the GNU since this code is clearly a derivative of Linux?
Open Standards Portal
First of all, thank you. I'm printing out your post and keeping it in my wallet Ann Landers style. It's one of the most profound posts ever to /. I will commend it to everyone working for me.
That said, it would be wise to consider what you have said in the harsh light of corporate politics.
What you have demonstrated is that it is possible to have integrity. Not that integrity is the only way.
Unfortunately, it remains true that any organization that relies to a large degree on trust is meat-and-potatoes to a sociopathic personality. Smart sociopaths don't become garden variety criminals, they put on suits and climb the corporate ladder. They leave behind a broad wake of deceit and betrayal. People who are drawn into this wake may lose their bearings, to the point where they begin to be unclear on what honesty and even basic decency are.
Thus you have cases like Enron, in which the management of a huge high profile company becomes in essence a massive criminal conspiracy. Enron's just the one of the big ones that got caught: this kind of culture is common enough that most of us middle aged folks have encountered it several times personally.
I think it is fair to say that if control of your own destiny is important to you, you have to choose. On one hand to be a liar and skilled in the arts that accompany this (deceipt, blame shifting, avoiding of consequences). Or to have integrity and be skilled in the arts that accompany that (tact, discretion, taking reponsibility, leadership).
In either case you can't avoid politics because one is the natural enemy of the other. And you really can't stake out a middle ground without losing control. Half measures depend on others not paying attention to succeed.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Tell the centurions any discipline problems are to be dealt with harshly!
Am I the only one having "Life of Brian" flashes here?
"Fwow McBwide to the floor, centuwion, vewy woughly!"
"And sue him, sir?"
"Oh, yes, swap a wawsuit on him wight away!"
This is confusing. The problem is that the meaning of "End User" is ambiguous. I have edited to make this more clear:
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 collect underpants
Step 2:
???, and purchase by credit card through our online store. Your underpants will be delivered electronically to the e-mail address specified in your order form.
Step 3:
Profit!
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*)
Heh, this is starting to move away from SCO, and their motivations, but oh well. Hard to say anything is off-topic when human behavior is a super-topic of pretty much everything involving humans.
Anyway, I didn't mean to imply that every action by everyone is deliberate. As you say, for better or worse, sometimes your subconcious makes decisions for you. But that doesn't mean it doesn't act in your interests.
In general, when a bus comes, and there is no one in danger, you don't instinctively jump out in front of it. In the case that there is someone going to be hit by it, you might be someone that instinctively jumps out to save that person, but there are many that are not. And what you do is still going to depend on your belief and value system, which I include in someone's "wants".
What if it wasn't a human about to be hit, but a wild rabbit? Or your dog, that you love very much? What if it's not a stranger but your mother or wife or child? Your interests are going to change your decision, even if you aren't consciously making it.
To change another variable what if it wasn't someone hit by a bus, but someone who fell off a cliff? Are you instinctively going to jump after them to save them, when you can't do anything? Your instinct makes you act quickly, but there's still some decision-making going on.
People don't always do things for any particular conscious purpose. But there's always a reason. People don't really behave randomly. The reasons are sometimes just so complex that you (as an observer, or even the person acting) can't understand them, or are not aware of them.
-If
Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!
You seem disproportionately offended by what I said - I'm sorry if that's the case. There's no need to make this personal.
If you don't agree, I'd like to hear more about how people act completely against all their interests. You basically just said, "No, you're wrong." That's not an argument, it's just contradiction.
I wasn't trying to start a philisophical treatise, so I didn't try to cover everything, like conflicting desires, and mental illness and a million more things I'm sure you could come up with. My point was simply that saying "People lie to get what they want" is not a very meaningful statement. A more interesting statement is "Darl wants this, and he lied because he thought this and this would happen."
-If
Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!