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'."
I am not sure what this ends up meaning, legally:
SCO also claims "substantial similarity" between the Read-Copy-Update (RCU) routine in Linux 2.6.5 and Linux patches and SCO's copyrighted work, specifically SVR4.2 MP.
Similarity can be a slippery slope and SCO will slide as far down as need be, I suppose. And how about something that "may" be an infringement:
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
The folks at SCO probably look like adults, they are adult-sized and wear nice clothes. However, they act like elementary school kids arguing over a ball on the playground. Whoever yells loud enough, pushes hard enough, and hold their breath the longest wins.
Cheers!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
From the article:
"In 1995, the year Novell sold Unix to the Santa Cruz Operation, an industry group calling itself the Tool Interface Standard Committee (TISC) came up with a ELF 1.2 standard and to popularize it and streamline PC software development granted users a "non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license" to the stuff, effectively putting it in the public domain, SCO says.
SCOsource chief Chris Sontag, the SCO VP in charge of the company's hate-inducing IP push, claims TISC, which folded immediately after the spec was published, exceeded its rights even though both Novell and the old SCO - as well as Microsoft, IBM and Intel - were on the committee."
So if SCO had a problem with ELF way back in 1995, why didn't they stop this back then? Obviously they had the choice to -- they clearly knew what TISC was doing. So why did it take SCO until 2003-2004 to point fingers at TISC?
I'm sorry, but this reeks of a last-ditch money-grab by SCO...even more than it did before. The release of ELF into the public domain happened nine years ago. IMHO, SCO should not be allowed to pull this into court because their business model is hurting now. Ridiculous.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
However, it's not a laughing matter, solely because the merits will be determined by lawyers and judges - not anyone with a vaguely technical background. Or much common sense...
The ELF bit is a weak arguement, but what can they do? They have a medium-sized pile of money and a dead-end product line. They can litigate, piss the money away trying to outdevelop both the open-source community and Microsoft in the OS space, or give up and find a new business to try and develop. Given the source of their pot of money, it makes sense to take their shot a the IBM lottery...
Of course, understanding their position doesn't make the decision a smart one.
... and not the last. Anyone remember some little company named Rambus sitting in on industry standard-setting and then running down to the patent office? This seems to be happening more and more often these days, and until we see these IP bullies get their noses bloodied in grand fashion, it's just going to keep on happening.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
as an example of how to alienate customers, annoy users, and destroy market share. A person that has a good experience with a company might tell one of their friends, but a person with a bad experience will tell all of their friends, and SCO has done the equivalent of pissing off the entire internet community.
A hundred years from now they'll be mentioning SCO in the same breath as Edsel, except Ford actually had other products to sell.
do they propose to have copyrighted a binary file format? Infringement would require that the "copied" files be "substantially similar" to the ones SCOX has copyrighted. Sounds a lot more like their usual squishy-"IP" claim: they hold the copyright on a book describing Unix utilities, so any implementation of grep violates their "IP."
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
If anyone did intentionally lift SCO code for 2.6 after the lawsuits they would have had to have been monumentally stupid, though hillariously spiteful. One would think it would be easy enough to find the authors of the suspect code and ask them before filing a lawsuit.
Of course they have to file something--the stock's fallen below $5, and the end-of-day painters can't bring it up again.
(Being below $5 is a bad thing(tm), because many mutual funds cannot own stocks priced that low. Also since one cannot easily sell short a stock on Nasdaq priced below $5, it dries up the pool of short-sellers to be squeezed with price manipulations)
The mainstream press is buying into SCO's claims just (AFAICT) based on the weight of how often they repeat them and the fact that they have an easy contact point, whereas there is no general "Linux" contact person.
... well, to give an equivalent example, if an author of a book included some infringing content, it's like holding every person that read the book liable. Eben Moglen's shot this down, it's been raked through the coals on Slashdot and Groklaw ... but because SCO does a better job of managing the press than the "Linux community, as a whole", nasty disinformation about open source is rapidly spreading around the world and seeping into end users' heads.
Take a look at today's CNN.com article, in which the reporter says:
"The communal aspects of open source can lead to thorny legal questions, particularly when a company claims its proprietary code has seeped into a project. Because developers typically don't offer warranties, end users could be held liable for infringements."
Wow. It's like saying that all code under the GPL is held to a legal standard that's as harsh as
Sad. And probably not fixable.
May we never see th
this is something on which Cisco can buy them just to shut them up
You can not, must not cave in to buy a company like this because it sets precedent for the creation of a million more just like them that will create noise and/or sue for things they don't have ownership for nor can prove there is damage being done.
You must see this out to the end, either being the annihilation of the barratrous company or the squashing of the lawsuit by an informed judicial process. You must send a message to all other wannabes that this type of crap will not be tolerated and that doing so will result in the destruction of their companies, their reputations, and their personal viability.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Anyone remember some little company named Rambus sitting in on industry standard-setting and then running down to the patent office?
Yeah, they're the same, except that the 'little company' didn't exist when the standard was written, don't have clear title to the format, waited *NINE YEARS* to bring it up, and doesn't have a patent, and thinks that this is a *copyright* issue.
But yeah, except for all those differences, it's totally the same.
The problem we see here and throughout the SCO case is that copyright was never designed with software in mind. 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.
If you write a book, it's unlikely that somebody's going to excerpt part of your book for their own use. It's even more unlikely that the excerpt they do make will get used by somebody else in their book. This is a standard practice in software.
Linux uses Elf. 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.
Basically this has the effect of destroying copyright in software. 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? How many times do we here of code that's out there, gets implemented countless times, and then somebody comes along and claims patent or copyright on some ancestor. The GIF patents are a perfect example of this.
I'm aware of no good solution to this problem. Every year, more code is written like this, and more copyright issues and patent issues arise. This will lead to legal fights, and overall increase the cost of developing software exponentially over time. Keep in mind that the code were dealing with don't date back much further than 1970, so it's only going to get worse.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
In addition to its usual bullshit and bluster, SCO finds it necessary to occasionally perform a tactical release of an especially stinky pile of festering, dripping wet feces. I believe we owe this particulary pungent release to the Wednesday morning meeting where Mr Broderick's affidavit will more or less be shitcanned. A somewhat embarassing turn of events for SCO, to say the least. These guys must have huge arms from shovelling so much shit.
well, reading what you pasted, "JFS2" sounds like something linux doesn't have, but rather is available for AIX. Of course, the JFS on linux would be the second version of JFS1 (JFS1-2?) which wasn't developed on AIX.. However, SCO's theory of "all your base are belong to us" is probably trying to claim since jfs1-2 was moved into the AIX operating system starting in 1997, that is, it code later touched AIX, all earlier versions of the code instantly became property of SCO.
Yeah, it's a load of BS.
Slashdot is fucked up when someone posts an insightful and informative post like this and it gains no mod points for either.
The Romans didn't find algebra very challenging, because X was always 10
This is, by turns, misleading and plain wrong.
I understand, but that breaks down even worse in SCO's favor. The litmus test is this:
1. Is the code EXACTLY the same?
This is not the litmus test. Copyrighted material need not be copied exactly for infringement. See that part on "substantial similarity" above. While the exact breadth of copyright protection is not nailed down, it is certainly not "exact" by any stretch of the imagination or caselaw.
2. Can SCO prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the code was explicitly copied, was disguised, did not diverge and was not re-implemented.
Uh, what? First, SCO only has to show that it was more likely than not copied. Reasonable doubt is only for criminal trials. Second, again, it need not be copied exactly. Third, it need not be disguised. In fact, copyright is a strict-liability statute. Intent is completely irrelevant. Even if you are influenced subconsciously, you are liable. Independent creation is a complete defense, but not realistic here, I don't think. Fourth, I don't understand what you mean by divergence and re-implementation. It sounds like similarity or derivative works. In either case, your standard of exact copying is wrong. Derivative works are entitled to the same protection as the original.
3. Can SCO show a trade secret that was stolen?
Trade secrets have absolutely nothing to do with copyright law.
We pretty much know that #1 is false
First, your #1 isn't the right test. Second, you know nothing until a jury tells you. It's a crapshoot like no other.
and that #2 is damn near impossible to prove.
Well, you have a strawman. You constructed an impossibly narrow and inaccurate test. Of course it's impossible to prove.
#3 is useless to them because TISC revealed the secret. They can sue TISC for that (if they have a leg to stand on), but they can't sue anyone else.
Again, nothing to do with copyright, which, with contract breach, is the heart of SCO's claims. I feel you might not be well-versed on these points.
Thus SCO is still performing barratry and they know it.
Barratry. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
1 : the purchase or sale of office or preferment in church or state
2 : an unlawful act or fraudulent breach of duty on the part of a master of a ship or of the mariners to the injury of the owner of the ship or cargo
3 : the persistent incitement of litigation
[from http://www.m-w.com/]
They're not inciting litigation. They're instigating it. Furthermore, they haven't done it persistently, just one big, long case.
IANAL, but I have taken copyright and contract law classes. I am not Just Guessing here.
Yeah, I remember dealing with static linking of shared libaries, and it was a mess. Luckily, even if there's some (extremely unlikely) problem that could force us to move from ELF, there are plenty of dynamic linkers out, and we could use some other binary format comparable in functionality to ELF. I don't think that SCO could claim to have the patent on the _concept_ of dynamic linking, since it was invented long before UNIX. (Or is SCO going to try to claim ownership of Multics because it rhymes with Unix?)
Anyway, if we can't use ELF, we would have to move to another binary format, which means that we would have to pick one new binary format, then recompile and relink of everything. That's a hassle, but it's not fatal.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Only in the changelogs. Real source don't have all those comments (nor you need them - you _have_ the changelog, the BK changelog, you can see who wrote x line in $foobar file and see the patch which changed it)
There are three ways of 'owning' a standard:
The first is patents. For example, something about Betamax tapes were patented, and thus people had to license the standard from the owner, Sony. SCO has no patents, so can't possibly have one over ELF, so let's move on.
The second is trademarks. For example, Firewire is trademarked by Apple. This doesn't stop anyone from making Firewire ports on their laptop, but it does stop them from calling them Firewire ports, without paying a fee. Likewise, anyone can impliment ISO-9001, but you have to get certified if you want to call yourself that. (Technically, I don't think these are trademarks, they're 'seal of approval' marks, but they're under trademark law somewhere.)
The third is ownership of the copyright of the standards document. Quite a few standards organizations make their money this way.
While I know SCO does not have a trademark on ELF, and I doubt they somehow have copyright on the standards document that someone else released into the public domain before they were born, the important thing to remember is that only patents can stop someone from implimenting a standard.
I can sit here without having pay any money to Phillips for their standards documentation or their trademark and build a CD player. I can't call it a 'CD' player without getting their approval, and I'll have a hell of a time building it without looking at their documenation, but as all patents on basic CD players obviously expired already (Yeah, it's been 20 years.), I can build one, and even sell it.
As there never were any ELF patents, there has never been anything to prevent anyone else from implimenting it, period. Even if TISC trademarked 'ELF' and sold the standards documentation, it's still perfectly legal for someone to use that document, or in fact any way of figuring out the format they want, and impliment a system that uses ELF, even if they have to call it 'HOBBIT' or something. (Remember, reverse engineering for compatiblity reasons is still legal.)
(For everyone still paying attention, there is standard information in the format, and I can just hear everyone thinking 'what about copyright on those bytes?'. Well, no go. It's been explicitly ruled that, since copyright is only on creative works, and as information required by a standard is not 'creative', but 'factual', thus, you can't copyright it.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Anyone is allowed to use the license, not to change the license.
I think the issue revolves around no other license, express or implied, is granted or intended hereby. I read as ELF is given to you under this license and no other licenses are implied and allowed. Which means that the release of ELF under GPL is not allowed.
Richard Stallman would probably stomp his feet too if someone was releasing emacs under a different license.
I think that the aim is to make GPL a non enforceable license more than collecting money.