Slashdot Mirror
SCO Claims Linux Lifted ELF
fymidos writes "SCO has finally spoken. According to this linuxworld article, they claim that linux illegally uses the ELF binary format, the JFS filesystem, the init code and some more 'copyrighted Unix header and interfaces'. Finally SCO makes its move. The JFS part was expected of course, but according to the article, as far as the ELF format is concerned 'the Tool Interface Standard Committee (TISC) came up with a ELF 1.2 standard' and 'granted users a "non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license" to the stuff'. Oh, and of course 'both Novell and the old SCO - as well as Microsoft, IBM and Intel - were on the committee'."
Make binary compatibility easier with Darwin, anyway.
This affects everyone, including the BSD's. And, of course, they're full of shit, once again. ELF is not the mortar that binds the OS together. Linux started with a.out, and can probably function just fine with some other binary format.
...skeptically. Which is nice.
The Army reading list
IIRC, JFS was contributed by IBM. Go back to the IBM v. SCO mess. I would guess that some part of the JFS code (at least in SCO's mind) contains SCO licensed material.
Remember that just because IBM wrote most of JFS, it may still contain code that had to be duplicated or rewritten to work outside of AIX. The question is whether IBM violated their agreements with SCO by redistributing or re-engineering those technologies.
Not saying it is so, only pointing out what SCO is probably trying to say
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
The Complete Story of Caldera/SCOX, as told by Yahoo.
This isn't the same SCO. You're talking about the Santa Cruz Organization, which isn't what the current SCO is. The current SCO was Caldera until relatively recently. They have nothing to do with each other.
Actually, there isn't all that much similarity except for the general money-grubbing-IP-capitalist stench.
Rambus committed fraud by ensuring their patented technology became incorporated in the standard without revealing their patent.
SCO committed perjury by claiming it owned copyrights on UNIX and JFS (Novell and IBM own those copyrights, respectively), and it violated the GPL by not allowing IBM to redistribute code that was licensed to them under the GPL.
The former was a fraud committed to get real evidence, the latter is a fraudulent claim to evidence.
From http://oss.software.ibm.com/jfs/ in their FAQ
:-)
Q1. What is the history of the source based use for the port of JFS for Linux.
A1. IBM introduced its UNIX file system as the Journaled File System (JFS)
with the initial release of AIX Version 3.1. This file system, now
called JFS1 on AIX, has been the premier file system for AIX over the
last 10 years and has been installed in millions of customer's AIX
systems. In 1995, work began to enhance the file system to be more
scalable and to support machines that had more than one
processor. Another goal was to have a more portable file system,
capable of running on multiple operating systems.
Historically, the JFS1 file system is very closely tied to the memory
manager of AIX. This design is typical of a closed-source operating
system, or a file system supporting only one operating system.
The new Journaled File System, on which the Linux port was based, was
first shipped in OS/2 Warp Server for eBusiness in April, 1999, after
several years of designing, coding, and testing. It also shipped with
OS/2 Warp Client in October, 2000. In parallel to this effort, some
of the JFS development team returned to the AIX Operating System
Development Group in 1997 and started to move this new JFS source base
to the AIX operating system. In May, 2001, a second journaled file
system, Enhanced Journaled File System (JFS2), was made available for
AIX 5L. In December of 1999, a snapshot of the original OS/2 JFS
source was taken and work was begun to port JFS to Linux.
So, the original JFS-1 was written as closed source for AIX. However, the JFS that made its way into Linux was JFS-2, which was originally written for OS/2 then ported to AIX and Linux.
Dunno how SCO can claim code written for OS/2
I think you meant Kim Jong-Il...
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
The ELF Standard says:
"The TIS Committee grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to use the information disclosed in this Specification to make your software TIS-compliant; no other license, express or implied, is granted or intended hereby."
Now that's pretty damn clear indication that anyone is allowed to use this license.
So how does SCO own this again? Oh, right, unlike IBM, Microsoft, Intel and the other members of the TIS committee, their business model is to sue! Ok, sorry, my fault.
Can't use ELF? No prob, we have a few others to choose from ...
;)
* a.out (Unix / Linux)
* COFF (Unix / Linux)
* XCOFF (AIX)
* ECOFF (Mips)
* SOM (HP)
* Mach-O (NeXT, Mac OS X)
* NLM
* OMF
* PEF (Macintosh)
Probably not. As near as I can tell, "Gupta" is the Indian equivalent of the English surname "Smith"; i.e. there are millions of Guptas running around.
Just correcting your misstatement: MoveOn.org did *NOT* connect Bush with Hitler. Two random people on the internet submitted *contest entries*, which were up among about *1500* entries. When the Hitler ads were pointed out to MoveOn.org, they promptly took them down. The outrage would be equivalent to, if I had made an anti-Semitic rant on slashdot, people accusing Slashdot of being an anti-Semitic site.
On the other hand, the Bush administration not only showed images of Hitler in the middle of an ad showing prominant democrats, but they falsely attributed the images to "MoveOn.org". That is slander. However, it doesn't stop there; lets not forget Max Cleland, who they compared to Osama bin Laden. And lets not forget all of the prominant Republican schills (Rush and his talk radio ilk, and even a number of people on Fox and the Washington Times) who regularly compare Democrats to Nazis without so much as a word of criticism because people have grown so used to it. And this on widely disseminated public mediums, instead of on an obscure page in a website's contest!
According to http://www.dvorak.org/scotimeline/, the SCO suit was launched on March 6, 2003.
According to http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Timeline %20of%20Linux%20development
Linux Kernel 2.4 was released on January 4, 2001 so it would follow that the code for 2.5 would be under development until the release of 2.6 on December 18, 2003.
So it's possible that SCO code was incorporated into 2.5 at the time of the lawsuit, but if they had actually seen that happening when they filed the suit you'd think they might have mentioned it. Afterall, they would have been able to make a reasonable argument for an injunction.
Exactly!
:-). IBM do. It was invented at Sequent, and patented by Sequent. As IBM bought Sequent in 1999, they own the patent on RCU, and can do whatever they please with it. SCO's nonsense argument about derivative works wouldn't help them even if it were correct (which it isn't). The method is not specific to Unix.
Regarding RCI, no SCO don't have a patent on RCU (as I'm sure you know
As regards JFS, the Linux code is derived from the OS/2 version. This has been repeated time after time, but it doesn't suit SCO's story, so they keep peddling the same lies as though that somehow makes them true.
Talk about clutching at straws!
No, you're the one who's wrong about dates. It was filed nine months before 2.6.0 came out.
Lawsuit filed against IBM: March 2003
Release of 2.6.0: Decemeber 2003
Actually, even HP/UX 11.00 on PA-RISC uses ELF on 64 bit binaries:
/stand/vmunix /stand/vmunix: ELF-64 executable object file - PA-RISC 2.0 (LP64)
HP-UX ***** B.11.00 U 9000/800 675309372 unlimited-user license
> file
keep in mind that they are Caldera/TSG not the old SCO that was one of the parties that released the ELF standard.
If this is so, then the Sony Playstation 2 would also be illegal since its binaries are in ELF format, right?
ummm... sorry what?
HP-UX in 32 bit mode uses SOM, in 64 bit mode uses ELF.
Tru64 uses ECOFF.
There's some weird errors in the article, especially since it comes from a Linux magazine:
"ELF is sorta like Microsoft's DLLs and was developed by AT&T's Unix System Labs as part of the Unix Application Binary Interface (ABI) before Unix was sold to Novell in 1993."
ELF is not like Microsoft's DLLs. ELF is a binary executable format, and is comparable to Microsoft's PE executable format (am i correct on that?) used in their EXE files. Unix shared libraries are comparable to Windows DLLs. Also, that's the first time I've ever seen the word "sorta" in an article. hmmm....
They also don't mention that almost every Unix OS uses the ELF format (as far as I've seen).
"The Free Software Foundation is also the creator of the GPL, the viral license that makes Linux so provocative."
Is this a statement from the Linuxworld author or SCO? SCO claimed the GPL was a "viral" license, but if that is coming from Linuxworld then something's wrong.
"It also says the journaled file system (JFS) module from later versions of AIX, which SCO believes may derive from the JFS Unix, is in Linux 2.6. - MOG"
what's "the JFS Unix"?
Anyway, SCO is going insane and should hopefully die soon. But the author of that article needs to learn more about Linux first lol (especially since it's a Linux magazine).
-eventhorizon
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
The nature of software licensing is such that there's frequent cases of derrived works from different sources, which is rarely the case in books.
Not true. People use other people's code under license, and people use other people's written texts under license. There is no inherent problem here: A programmer knows when he is and is not writing original code just as well as a writer knows when he is producing original work as opposed to quoting.
SCO claims that the committee that opened up that standard didn't have the authority to do so. Well, it's now years later, and there are countless works derived off of that original standard, and now SCO wants to undo it.
Yes, and they can't.
Basically this has the effect of destroying copyright in software.
No it doesn't. SCO can claim whatever they want. It doesn't mean it'll stand up in court.
How can anybody feel legally safe using any software product at any time when the history of every piece of code isn't out there for our perusal?
Not difficult. As a programmer, don't use other people's code without knowing what copyright restrictions apply.
No, you can't change those restrictions retroactively, except if a court finds it was an obvious mistake, and even then only within a reasonable timeframe. SCO has no case, yet you seem to assume they are right. One should never assume that about SCO.
As a end-user you are not liable. You are only guilty of contributory copyright infringment if it can be proven that you knew or should have known that the software you were using contained someone else's code. How are you supposed to know that as an end-user? Especially if you're running a binary? That is just silly.
As a software developer, for patents: Don't look at patents. If you can't afford to have a team of lawyers continously scrutinize your work for patent violations, the best option is not to look at anything you know is patented. In that way, you can always claim any infringment was unintentional, in which case you are unlikely to be forced to pay damages.
(Given you take appropriate action when a patent owner does accuse you of infringement)
As an end user: The same logic on contributory infringment applys.
I agree though, patents are dangerous and will end up increasing the legal complexity and costs of developing software.
But copyrights are not a problem in this sense.
Please do not post links to thefreedictionary.com - they are a dodgy site which repackages Wikipedia content whilst stretching the GFDL as far as they possibly can.
Look at that link you posted - you'll see a credit to Wikipedia at the bottom. Now disable javascript in your browser and refresh - ooh, the credit is gone! They insert it in with javascript rather than putting it in the body of the page to ensure that Google doesn't pick it up. Why? Because a link to Wikipedia's article would help lift Wikipedia's pagerank above that of freedictionary.com.
Just say no, and if you want to read Wikipedia's timeline of Linux development, read the original.
> ...SCO should not be allowed to pull this into
> court...
They aren't. In none of their claims in any of their lawsuits do they ever accuse anyone of infringing their copyrights by putting their stuff into Linux.
IBM, on the other hand, is close to getting a declaratory judgement that nothing in Linux infringes SCO's copyrights. In opposing IBM's motion for summary judgement on that declaratory judgement SCO has explicitly said that they are not claiming any infringement by Linux.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Just got my karma back, but I gotta do this anyway since you pushed the political bantering.
1. moveon.org is NOT a far left-wing organization - unless you listen to bill O'reilly. Visit their website, do a logic test. Now do the same at gop.org. logical fallacy after logical fallicy to explain the accusations of the "coalition of the wild-eyed"
2. The association between Bush and Hitler by moveon.org was made by a private citizen in media presented as an entry into a contest - not moveon.org. The contestent didn't win, and kerry nor moveon.org never endorsed the ad. They also denouced the submitted ad.
3. Bush/Cheney did however endorse and release an ad that included the Hitler picture that was submitted in moveon.org ad - again, perpetuating the half-truths of the Bill O'Reilly's of the world.
Fox is NOT "Fair and Balanced", diversify your news gathering instead of repeating the O'Reilly propaganda. Seriously, be a conservative all you want - good for you - just do you research, learn both sides.
ymmv
Just FYI: "Substantially similiar" is a legally valid term that is suggesting that the code is a derivative work of the SCO code.
In order to violate copyright they don't need to be identical copies. Instead they need to show that they are substantially similiar (there it is) to each other, implying that the Linux version is derived from the original SCO code. At what point something stops being a derived work is a whole different mess...
One common example of this type of copyright dispute is in housing floorplans and architecture. Often someone will see a floorplan they like in a magazine (copyrighted), and move a few things around and have blueprints drawn from that. That's an infringement on the original copyright, because the resulting work is really just a derived form of the original.
SCO's claims fail on a number of levels, but your 'analysis' is more or less incorrect.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
SCO stock's inside trading record shows five automatic sell orders and only two regular sells in recent History (Going back to Sept. of last year). No inside trades have been reported since April 7th. There are no buys or automatic buys (0).
Largest number of transactions (by far) and largest total value (by a smaller ratio) is Director Thomas P. Raimondi.
Gasparro, Larry (VP), Broughton, Reginald (SR VP), and Bench, Robert K. (CFO) all appear on the list. Bench owns (or owned by the most recent record) roughly 2.4 times as much stock as the next largest investor on the list.
Hunsaker, Jeff F. is the only person appearing on the list who is not shown with a position in the company described to explain why he is an insider, but other sources confirm he was a SR VP.
Interestingly, Darl's name does not appear at all on the inside trading list.
Who is John Cabal?
Actually while he was an ordinary MP Churchill spent a lot of time on copyright matters. He made sure he kept the copyright on all his speeches. The BBC have to pay a substantial fee every time they use them. Its probably at leas 500 quid by now.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
The burden of proof is indeed a preponderance of evidence. I don't like the description of "51%" because it isn't that meaningful to me. I prefer saying that proving something by a preponderance of evidence means showing that it is more likely than not. (Including the defense's evidence of course.) Barron's law dictionary has the quote "Evidence preponderates where it is more convincing to the trier [of fact] than the opposing evidence."
Clear and convincing evidence is sometimes used for affirmative defenses, such as insanity. (Usually it's a preponderance of the evidence.) In these cases, the defense must show by clear and convincing evidence that the defense was met. If during deliberation the jury finds that the burden was met, and the prosecution failed to disprove the defense by a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' burden, they must acquit.
SCO Openserver 5.0 came out in 1995 and was the last Intel Unix to move to that standard.
"Software is the difference between hardware and reality"
Actually, ex post facto means "after the fact." The phrase a posteriori is the complement to a priori, which are terms from philosophy that define how a datum is knowable: Knowledge that is "a priori" is knowledge that is known without experience, whereas "a posteriori" knowledge is known only with experience.
;-)
The most useful contrast would be between mathematics, which may be continually derived by pure thought, and physics, which requires that theories be subjected to experimentation.
Mathematics and logic can be said to be "a priori" systems, but natural science requires validation against experience and is thus "a posteriori."
IIRC, these phrases mean "from before" and "from after," not "after the fact," which, as I said before, is better translated to Latin as "ex post facto."
Not that your meaning wasn't clear to me, but quickly looking over the use of these phrases in modern writing shows me that "a priori/a posteriori" are terms mostly used in logic and epistomology, wheras I see them not at all in legal dictionaries, while "ex post facto" shows up frequently in legal writing.
I don't claim any great authority, here, however, and would be happy to be proved wrong. (Well, not happy, maybe, but I'm preapred for it
> in the early '80s when Sequent S81 was running Dynix/ptx with SVR and BSD interface flavours.
It must have been late 80s or early 90s, because the first 386-based *uniprocessor* system was released by Compaq in 1986.
Sequent certainly didn't have 386 SMP machines in the early 80s. Even 286 SMP machines look unlikely in that timeframe, given that the 286 was introduced in 1982. In any event, there wasn't any version of System V for the 286, if we exclude Xenix 286.
The bsd CASE cause that source to be giveout ie the Lose of it was Novell sorry you can not go back before Novell that stuffed it up everything before them was called stolen from bsd ie can not use stolen code to proff of theif or code that was use to pay off the cost of using BSD code by removing the licence. So Init and elf not a problem read the linux source please lot of elf sections are BSD kinda kills everything BSD allows GPL to be put over the top with the version that was on that code. As for the filesystem almost no linux systems use it so lossing it would not be a problem.
So basicly SCO is stuffed with both fights most of the init files in linux also came from bsd so also protected.
I think "forced" is the wrong word. If a software distributor adds GPL'd code to their own and distributes the result, they either have to demonstrate they have a license, or they are infringing the copyrights of the GPL'd code author(s). That leaves them two choices, only one of which required them to offer their own code under a GPL-compatible license. The other option is to stop the infringement by no longer distributing the infringing code. The "rip it out and replace it" strategy works just as well for them as it does for anyone, presuming they actually understand how to code it.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.