Groklaw Debunks SCO's ELF Heist

Xenographic writes "Following SCO's earlier claims that ELF really belonged to them, in this Groklaw article, we find enough proof to show that SCO does not and never could have owned ELF or any part of it. Moreover, it shows that their real motive in this is to desperately raise new issues to stave off IBM's motion for summary judgement on IBM's 10th counterclaim. For those who don't remember, that's the one where IBM asked for certification that their Linux activities did not violate any of SCO's copyrights, and SCO replied (with forked tongue) that the case against IBM wasn't about copyrights... Let the "Santa Claus Organization" jokes commence."

Comments

Slashdot mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, SCO, SCO, SCO. This latest prank... Where to begin to unravel the latest brainstorm, the claim that ELF belongs to them, that Linux is using it illegally, and that it's the mortar holding the entire kernel together? I am smiling just typing this.

Here is what the ELF story is about, according to a Linuxworld article by Maureen O'Gara:

"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."

OK. ELF. Here we go. After all the research we have done, here are the conclusions I reach. First, ELF isn't mortar. It's not even in the kernel. It's interface stuff. It's not the only interface one might use, and in fact it replaced a prior interface, so it isn't essential for Linux to keep breathing and life to go on. It'd be annoying but not at all impossible to replace it.

Second, if TISC overstepped its authority, that is between SCO and SCO, because oldSCO was involved, oldSCO being a member of TISC.

Third, I don't believe they own it.

Fourth, Linux is not unique in using ELF.

Fifth, this is getting silly.

Let me explain, please, how I reached those conclusions.

Here's what the TISC document [PDF], regarding ELF version 1.2, told the world they were intending and what the world could do with ELF:

"This Executable and Linking Format Specification, Version 1.2, is the result of the work of the Tool Interface Standards (TIS) Committee--an association of members of the microcomputer industry formed to work toward standardization of the software interfaces visible to development tools for 32-bit Intel Architecture operating environments.

"Such interfaces include object module formats, executable file formats, and debug record information and formats. The goal of the committee is to help streamline the software development process throughout the microcomputer industry, currently concentrating on 32-bit operating environments. To that end, the committee has developed specifications--some for file formats that are portable across leading industry operating systems, and others describing formats for 32-bit Windows * operating systems. Originally distributed collectively as the TIS Portable Formats Specifications Version 1.1, these specifications are now separated and distributed individually.

"TIS Committee members include representatives from Absoft, Autodesk, Borland International Corporation, IBM Corporation, Intel Corporation, Lahey, Lotus Corporation, MetaWare Corporation, Microtec Research, Microsoft Corporation, Novell Corporation, The Santa Cruz Operation, and WATCOM International Corporation. PharLap Software Incorporated and Symantec Corporation also participated in the specification definition efforts. This specification like the others in the TIS collection of specifications is based on existing, proven formats in keeping with the TIS Committee's goal to adopt, and when necessary, extend existing standards rather than invent new ones.

"About ELF: Executable and Linking Format The Executable and Linking Format was originally developed and published by UNIX System Laboratories (USL) as part of the Application Binary Interface (ABI). The Tool Interface Standards committee (TIS) has selected the evolving ELF standard as a portable ob

Summary

[MojoRilla]

SCO says the ELF format was improperly released by the TISC.

But SCO was on the TISC. And so was Novell. And the TISC released ELF before assets were sold.

Plus, any format endorsed by the TISC is property of that committee. And anyone who joins the committee and donates standards must grant the TISC rights.

Finally, the ELF format is an interchange format, and not copywritable.

Re:Selling SCO short?

[cosmo7]

You're looking at a French re-insurance company. The SCO we all love and cherish trades as SCOX.

Selling SCO short

[Dr_Marvin_Monroe]

If you look at the charts, it looks like MANY people have been covering their short positions. That's the only reason I can figure that the stock price INCREASES after the bad/good news on the DC suit.

Looks to me like many of the shorts are now buying shares back to cover their short positions, and those swindlers at SCO are not really giving in to sell.

I simply recommend staying away from SCOX, it's really tough to outmanuver the stock swindlers on a company such as this. The company insiders and all the people on the SCOX insider phone-tree have been pumping up the share prices, selling back and then re-purchasing to manipulate the price. Simply stay away from these guys.... There's better money to be made somewhere else, and it doesn't tarnish your karma or expose you to the risks found here.

Re:The Media

[julesh]

Well, the Financial Times has had two articles on this over the last couple of days. With a fairly pro-linux attitude, by the looks of it -- one of them starts like this:

A US judge yesterday dealt the controversial SCO Group a significant setback in its campaign to profit from Linux by throwing out much of the software company's lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler.

Re:Wow.. The BayStar/SCO Fight just got uglier..

[SirFozzie]

Basically, SCO want to hurry up and retire the A-1 stock (which gives BayStar a lot of say about how SCO runs the lawsuit and their business).

The SEC signed off on the deal, and SCO says "Ok. Here's your money and shares. You're now a commoner just like the rest of our stockholders."

Baystar: "I still have some questions about the SCOSource Licensing program... you're telling us one thing and doing another."

SCO: "Not Listening! TAKE THE STOCK AND MONEY! LA! LA! LA! (fingers in ears)"

Baystar: "Wait a second.. I have valid concerns, I haven't signed off on this yet.."

SCO: "Yes you have! You just own a ton of our stock now. Go away! We don't like you anymore"

Re:This whole SCO thing goes to show....

[miniver]

Is word creation in English substantially different than in other languages?

The primary reason for the size of the English vocabulary (and why English is one of the most popular international languages) is that English is like the Borg: all new words are assimilated into the collective. When someone creates a new word, all it takes to be part of English is for people to use it. For that matter, English sucks in words from other languages continuously -- 'rendezvous' was originally from the French phrase 'rendez vous', for present yourself.

Compare and contrast that with French, where the Académie française dictates whether or not a word is allowed to be part of 'French', and it can take decades to approve of a new word. (BTW, Have the French decided what to call a computer yet?)

"A language is a dialect with an Army and a Navy."
-- attributed to Professor Max Weinreich