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
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
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)
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!
If this is so, then the Sony Playstation 2 would also be illegal since its binaries are in ELF format, right?
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 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!