IBM Ordered to Show More Code to SCO

editingwhiz writes "Bob Mims of the Salt Lake Tribune has the scoop straight from the courthouse steps: 'A federal magistrate has handed a partial victory to Utah's SCO Group, ordering computer giant IBM to turn over more of its Linux operating system-related program codes. U.S. Magistrate Brooke Wells' ruling, released just minutes after Salt Lake City's federal courthouse closed Wednesday, came in the Lindon software company's contractual suit stemming from Big Blue's alleged distribution of Linux applications purportedly tainted with SCO's proprietary Unix code.' If at all possible, SCO's going to be even more insufferable now -- it has a glimmer of hope."

Comments

Plain english

[garompa]

Please.

Re:Plain english

[Dav3K]

Plain English translation: Consider the source.

Seriously, this was reported in the Salt Lake Tribune? Anyway, enough preamble. This isn't a 'victory' for SCO, as reported. This is the judge partially granting a request for more discovery. Which means that SCO gets more delay, hence the 'victory' part.

Anything more is just fluff.

Re:Plain english

[garompa]

Ok, sounds like it really is like that.

Re:Plain english

[Chris Burke]

SCO succeeded in delaying even more by requesting more code. The judge granted some, but not all, of what SCO wanted -- e.g. they wanted every revision from IBM's AIX and Dynix source revision control system along with all programmers notes, but instead just got more code and some notes. While this is in part a "victory" for SCO as their request was partially granted, the judge noted that she was doing this so as to prevent any further complaints that IBM has not supplied enough code. In other words, this is the end of the line as far as code discovery goes.

Groklaw of course has more.

Re:Plain english

[ngc5194]

You might want to check out some of Mims' previous reports on this topic. I can't recall the first few articles he wrote on the topic, but over at least the last year I would say that his reporting has been well-researched, fair, and not at all flattering to SCO. He deserves a little slack.

Re:Plain english

[Dav3K]

Fair enough. Mims isn't a SCO drone most of the time. But if this is what SCO is considering to be a victory these days, they are in for a rough ride.

Re:Plain english

[flint]

"Judge Brooke Wells granted SCO a partial review of IBM's programing code and said that SCO could be given complete access in the future if IBM withholds any further data."

No it's not close to the beginning or end of the line. In situations we might see this little back and forth quite a few times.

Re:Plain english

[Chris Burke]

Assuming IBM doesn't comply with the order. SCO just claiming IBM needs to fork over more code isn't going to cut it.

On the bright side...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no way SCO is going to be able to analyze all this code before they go bankrupt.

Re:On the bright side...

[TubeSteak]

I kinda agree with the AC, SCO is just getting a little more time before they will have to pony up some information.

btw- Magistrate != Judge
I'm not sure Judge Kimball would have agreed to SCO's motion, but I'll give the Magistrate credit for this zinger:

To the extent possible the parties are to agree upon the 3000 designated individuals. However, based on the record before the court it appears that IBM has better access to information regarding who made the most changes or significant contributions to AIX and Dynix. Therefore, IBM is to file an affidavit detailing the process by which the 3000 were chosen. Once again by requiring this, the court seeks to circumvent the rote objection by SCO alleging that they did not get enough information.

Re:On the bright side...

[ssimontis]

I think thet should release all the code under the GPL if possible. Wouldn't it be fun to see the look on SCO's face when they had to agree to the GPL?

Re:On the bright side...

[TubeSteak]

heh. heh heh.
there's a certain amount of irony in a move like that, but SCO would just say that there are portions of the code that belong to them... therefore it can't be GPLed blahblah blah blah blah...

Or they'd say that their lawyers looked at it and not them.

Hello....

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello.... this is isn't a partial victory, it's just additional DISCOVERY.

There's no victory until someone prevails or settles.

Sheesh.

Re:Hello....

[darien]

But SCO is "winning" for as long as this drags on and Linux appears (to the man in the street) more and more mired in confusion and controversy. Very few of us believe SCO really intends to "win" - they just want to inflict as much damage as possible as they go down, and this gives them more time and leverage to do it.

Re:Hello....

[marika]

The good news for linux is that the collective memory will be about 6 months after sco dies, and linux will be free of sco's fud for generations to come.

Re:Hello....

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think that the "average man in the street" remembers anything about the case or gives a damn? And those who are at all likely to use Linux already know that SCO is full of crap and don't care about the lawsuit. So this doesn't really harm Linux at all.

Re:Hello....

[tomhudson]

... except that, with the additional delays, there are fewer reasons not to let the other cases go forward (RedHat Lanham Act claims, etc.).

Re:Hello....

[SunFan]

But SCO is "winning" for as long as this drags on and Linux appears (to the man in the street) more and more mired in confusion...

IBM can drag this out to the end of time, Sun already claims to indemnify their customers, Red Hat is still selling RHEL--in short, no one give a rat's ass about SCO. Anyone who does is either working for SCO or retarded. That's it.

Re:Hello....

[yo_tuco]

"...So this doesn't really harm Linux at all...."

I think there is some harm to FOSS. Case in point: At work (a large corporation) we have, of course, MS all over the office space but IBM AIX workstations too (among others). All applications used on clients must be approved.

Some FOSS has made its way into the company and can be used; however, now a warning is displayed that there may be risk of legal litigation if the user builds with these tools with a link to information from the legal department that no one will bother to read. It doesn't stop me one bit of course. But I could see a PHB heeding that warning and selecting MS tools instead.

Re:Hello....

[yo_tuco]

"...He seems to believe he'd sleep better at night if we were a 100% IIS shop. Ugh...."

Of course he will sleep better with IIS because you will be working all night long patching the system all the time. ;-)

We're gonna need a bigger boat

[gowen]

... because as fishing trips go, there's one hell of an expedition being organised by SCO.

PS : Didn't SCO claim that they had print outs of all the copied code, that they could show anyone who signed an NDA? Why do they need to search any more of IBM's codebase.

Re:We're gonna need a bigger boat

[zev1983]

A question is whether SCO has to make sure they return all of this code after the the trial and everything is over. After all IBM owns AIX. SCO is asking for AIX code. So unless SCO pays up if they don't return it, IBM could sue them.

Re:We're gonna need a bigger boat

[harrkev]

Sooo, how large of a stack of green-bar paper would this 900 million lines require?

Re:We're gonna need a bigger boat

[SunFan]

Well, 900,000,000 ÷ 60 = 15,000,000 pages. Assuming a ream of paper is about 1.5 inches ... the stack is 355 miles high?!? Somebody shove aside Burt Rutan, we have a new winner!

Re:We're gonna need a bigger boat

[SunFan]

Crap, I forgot to divide by 500. Sorry, SCO, no prize for you!

Re:We're gonna need a bigger boat

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, Mac OS X is just as closed source as Windows is.

Re:We're gonna need a bigger boat

[SunFan]

Where is Microsoft's equivalent to Darwin or even this?
Beyond that, Mac OS is just a better desktop. I hear practically no one complaining about it, but, interestingly, all people seem to do is complain about Windows. If someone doesn't like the closed aspects of Mac OS, there are other options, like Linux with GNOME. The main point of divergence is with Apple's other applications, not with the OS itself.

Re:We're gonna need a bigger boat

[Theatetus]

Where is Microsoft's equivalent to Darwin or even this?

Microsoft's version of the second one is here, and it won several awards.

Re:We're gonna need a bigger boat

[SunFan]

UNIX interoperability is at Mac OS' core, now. SFU is an add-on, an afterthought.

Re:We're gonna need a bigger boat

[OwnedByTwoCats]

900,000,000 lines of code * (1 page / 60 lines) * (1.5 inches/500 pages) * (1 foot / 12 inches) and I get 3,750 feet. Three world-trade-centers, plus a bit.

Even more code?

[Mongo222]

How can you turn over "even more" of something that's already open sourced?

Re:Even more code?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean you dont know?

Re:Even more code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read AIX, not Linux.

Re:Even more code?

[DjReagan]

Because the code they're being ordered to turn over is for AIX and Dynix, which isn't Open-Sourced.

Re:Even more code?

[Justin205]

Then how is this still a lawsuit against Linux? If they're no longer going after Linux itself, they cannot keep demanding $699 for a "licence".

Re:Even more code?

[DjReagan]

SCO are alleging that IBM contributed code from AIX and Dynix into Linux, and that this contravened the licensing agreement that IBM had for using Unix System V code, which is the basis for AIX and Dynix.

The code they are alleging was copied however, was written by IBM, but incoporated into AIX and Dynix before being put over to Linux. So what it comes down to, and what is being tested in court is whether the Sys-V contracts that mention control of code can be extended to other code that is later incorporated into IBM's derived product.

Re:Even more code?

[mrjackson2000]

i think thats the best description i've seen of this whole thing yet, thanks

Re:Even more code?

[Anarchofascist]

IBM had already handed over all of AIX and Dynix. SCOG/Caldera's lawyers have the source code to every version of AIX and Dynix ever released.

NOW SCOG/Caldera's lawyers have told the judge - "nope we can't find any infringements here, we need more" and the judge has ruled that they can have every version of AIX and Dynix which ever existed in version control including all notes made by anyone who worked on the project.

This is just another delay... in part because IBM's defence was that producing all the version controlled source was too hard and would take to long. Now they have to work hard and take long or get branded as liars. They'll probably just run through source control, and for ever single commit they will burn a stack of source code CDs. I expect that will run to a few truckloads of CDs which SCO/Caldera will then decide will take years to sift through... and blah blah blah the glacial US legal process drags on until SCO runs out of money.

But never fear! Even if there is code there which ended up in Linux, they don't have a prayer. IBM owns a developers license to Unix (bought from AT&T) to modify Unix and sell it as its own product AIX. SCO (which bought the license rights) says the license also says that new code IBM has added to Unix to produce AIX cannot also be donated to Linux, but that's just plain nuts. If they write B and insert it into A, how can the license agreements with A prevent you from adding the same code to your own product C?

Re:Even more code?

[erikharrison]

but that's just plain nuts. If they write B and insert it into A, how can the license agreements with A prevent you from adding the same code to your own product C?

Licences are strane things boyo. I once heared of a licence that extended to all derived works. So if I licenced product A under this licence, and created derived product B from it, and put code I had written for product B into product C, the C would have to be licenced the same as product A.

I bet you've heared of this licence yourself. It's called the GPL.

Now, before someone flames me, there are legitimate cases where the GPL doesn't cause this problem, in the case where you are, for example, adding subsystems to the Linux kernel. There is some reason to consider, say, large portions of ReiserFS 4 to be potentially relicencable, since they aren't linux specific, and are isolated from even the kernel VFS via Reiser's own VFS. This code probably isn't a derived work in any sense (Linus said something similar about Nvidia binary drivers a while back).

Despite this, if someone forked Linux or portions of Linux to create another OS (say, Syllable, an OS which is not directly derived from Linux, but has huge portions of code from Linux), that OS would be GPL. You then can't shove Syllable code into MS Windows.

The question is not "Is this nuts" the question is "Is this what the original Unix licence actually means"

Re:Even more code?

[Curtman]

At least they seem to have finally shut up about the millions of lines of mystery code that allegedly has nothing to do with IBM. I'm sure that mantra of FUD will resurface once the Red Hat case gets going again.

Re:Even more code?

[ThosLives]

This is one of my beefs with the "derivative works" clauses in many software products. There's this strange idea of what is and what isn't a derivative product.

What is seems is that IBM may have gotten System V from SCO and then added some features that were original creations of IBM (to create AIX/Dynix). IBM is then alleged to have given those new features to Linux. SCO is claiming they own those "new" features created by IBM because of some wording in the System V contracts.

Now, we can all reasonably conclude that this is stupid; if I buy a car and design a new fin for it, then sell the fin design to others, the car companies don't claim the fin design is their property. However, when we purchase a car we don't sign a "derivative works" contract with the car dealer or manufacturer.

The way I see it there are a couple of things that could happen. One is that the original contracts may be found to say that derivative works are property of SCO, in which case IBM did not have the right to give them away for use in Linux - and I would say IBM was dumb to sign such a contract and should legally pay. However, even if the contract was written for that scenario, the court might find that such a provision is "unreasonable" and is void (similar to the car example). Another way it could go is that IBM somehow took code that it did not originally create but thought it owned and contributed it to Linux. This is a little more tricky because it's basically an "oops, we didn't read the original contract correctly".

Out of those scenarios, the latter is the worst because it would mean that [Linux] is infringing. In the former case, either SCO owns the derivative works or doesn't. I would argue that, if SCO is found to own the derivative works, IBM charges them some large amount of money for the development of those new works. Probably to the tune that SCO is filing in the suit, since that is the apparent value on those features. After all, IBM did not develop those features gratis for the benefit of SCO!

All in all, I think all sides (SCO, IBM, the Linux crowd) are focusing on the wrong things here. Litigation never added value to society at all and sucks up resources. I definitely agree with the camp that thinks SCO would be better off devleoping product than litigating.

Re:Even more code?

[jeffasselin]

No, quite wrong.

If you yourself wrote product A and B, you can relicence your code for product C any way you want.

OTOH, if *I* take code from your product A to make product D, then yes product D has to be GPL.

Re:Even more code?

[ultranova]

Licences are strane things boyo. I once heared of a licence that extended to all derived works. So if I licenced product A under this licence, and created derived product B from it, and put code I had written for product B into product C, the C would have to be licenced the same as product A.

I bet you've heared of this licence yourself. It's called the GPL.

No. You own the copyright to whatever code you wrote, and can do what you please with it. However, you cannot take code belonging to someone else, licensed under the GPL, and relicense it under some other license.

In your example, if product C contains code from product A, and you don't own the copyright to this code, then product C must comply with the license product A was licensed under. The reason for this is that you must have a right to distribute all parts of product C in order to have a right to distribute it - if you don't, then you are distributing someone else's code without their permission, and are thus in violation of copyright laws.

On the other hand, if product C was completely written by you, or you have somehow else obtained rights to distribute every component of it under whatever license product C is distributed under, then of course you can distribute product C. And of course you have a right to distribute your own code under whatever license you wish, or under several licenses - for example, MySQL is distributed under the GPL, but can also be licensed (for money) under other license(s) that allow you to bundle it with prorietary products. This practice is known as dual licensing.

Think of it this way: if you write a cool compression library, and license it under the GPL so it can be used in some GPL'd program, then of course you can use it yourself in your own proprietary programs - after all, you hold the copyright, the right to copy. And of course you can give out whatever licenses you wish to whoever you wish - why couldn't you ?

Re:Even more code?

[Raunch]

The code they are alleging was copied however, was written by IBM, but incoporated into AIX and Dynix before being put over to Linux.
Is this something that IBM denies? Because if it isn't I don't see why they need to go through this whole deal. If IBM says "sure we wrote code and put it into AIX and Dynix and linux" then it's about what you said before:
whether the Sys-V contracts that mention control of code can be extended to other code that is later incorporated into IBM's derived product.
But if IBM is denying this(and it is actually true), how can they prove that the code didn't go into Linux first?

I don't think that is the case though; I don't see why IBM wouldn't just go ahead and deal with it if they really thought that they were in breach or whatnot. It sounds as though SCO is having such a hard time finding the code because it isn't there. I mean, If they really had any proof, they could just say "we need lines X through X" couldn't they?

Re:Even more code?

[ronhughes]

I want to see IBM give them a truck load of post-its and old Dilbert desk calendar pages with notes scribbled on them. Just my 2.0 cents.

Re:Even more code?

[fenris_23]

So the question is whether code written by IBM actually belongs to SCO? Did the license IBM agree to in order to Develop AIX and Dynix state that all code developed by IBM and added to Sys-V in order to develop a derived product will belong to another party? I just can't imagine that IBM would have agreed to that. It doesn't even make sense. Why would IBm develop a product for another company's benefit and not their own?

Re:Even more code?

[Anonymous Coward]

IT certainly appears that SCO was never intended to develop code. I would guess that their sole existence is to try and suck the money out of the ownership of the Unix code base.

Re:Even more code?

[SunFan]

they can have every version of AIX and Dynix which ever existed in version control including all notes made by anyone who worked on the project.

Isn't this irrelevant? If none of the products available to the public infringed, then obviously any internal infringing code was recognized and taken out before being sold. It seems that the only thing SCO could bite on is some abusive technicality of the law. Is it even possible for SCO to suck more?

Re:Even more code?

[arootbeer]

All in all, I think all sides (SCO, IBM, the Linux crowd) are focusing on the wrong things here. Litigation never added value to society at all and sucks up resources. I definitely agree with the camp that thinks SCO would be better off devleoping product than litigating.

But, considering SCO's track record with developing products, wouldn't having them doing that again also not add value and suck up resources?

Re:Even more code?

[Algan]

I definitely agree with the camp that thinks SCO would be better off devleoping product than litigating.

That's where you're wrong. Apparently SCO is not able to develop a competitive product. For them (strictly for them) at this point litigation is the better option. The alternative would be to fold up and die.

For the society in general, it is a different story :)

Re:Even more code?

[greed]

In your example, if product C contains code from product A, and you don't own the copyright to this code, then product C must comply with the license product A was licensed under.

Keep in mind that the following idiom will cause product C to contain code from product A: #include <A/header.h>

So will linking, shared or static. Unless you can link without access to any of the copyrightable files in program A, your library or application will be a derived work.

The Linux kernel provides an exemption, allowing programs to use standard system calls without becoming a derived work.

Re:Even more code?

[Anonymous Coward]

So really he's right and your just nitpicking to defend the GPl then....

Re:Even more code?

[MaineCoon]

The first part is a bit incorrect.

If you create product B derived from A which is licensed under GPL, B must be licensed under GPL.

HOWEVER, the code you wrote exclusively for B CAN be relicensed and incorporated AT YOUR PERMISSION into C under a difference license. You control the licensing of the code you explicitly wrote, but you cannot relicense a derived work including GPL'ed code you did not write without approval from the authors of the specific code.

Re:Even more code?

[nero4wolfe]

I'm curious... A year or so ago someone found a letter from AT&T (written years before SCO had its present ownership) that they said explicitly disclaimed the strange contract interpretation that SCO is basing its whole case on. Has that come up in court yet?

Also, iirc one of the packages that the idiots at SCO are complaining about (jfs?) was written first for OS/2. Then it was ported separately to aix & linux. That really sounds like a reach to me to call it a derivative work...

Re:Even more code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently SCO is not able to develop a competitive product.
Its hard to develop any thing when all you money is going to lawyers, the well will be dry soon, unless Uncle Billy forks over, again.
The alternative would be to fold up and die.
When you can no longer compete, what else do you do?

The fat lady will sing, its how long $CO wants to keep her off stage, oh, Darl needs a pay raise.

Re:Even more code?

[Anonymous Coward]

NOW SCOG/Caldera's lawyers have told the judge - "nope we can't find any infringements here, we need more" and the judge has ruled that they can have every version of AIX and Dynix which ever existed in version control including all notes made by anyone who worked on the project.

There may not be that many versions of AIX and Dynix in version control. Between those versions AIX and Dynix may not be well-defined. What there will undoubtedly be is many versions of various components of AIX and Dynix.

They'll probably just run through source control, and for ever single commit they will burn a stack of source code CDs.

My guess is that what they will do is provide a whack of source that clearly is development code for AIX and Dynix, and then trickle out source as they find and "identify" it as AIX or Dynix code. Naturally, this wouldn't be acceptable to SCO, but I don't have a clue if this would pass muster with the judge.

Re:Even more code?

[k12linux]

Take a look at groklaw.net for any letters, documents, etc. related to the case. You can also read some VERY revealing depositions that IBM did with people directly involved with the contract negotiations... who all say that no, derivitive works were not covered so long as they do not actually include the AT&T code itself.

So, bottom line appears to be that all SCO really needs is to do a direct source-code to source-code comparison then weed out stuff they can't possibly claim ownership (such as BSD code added to SysV.)

Of course that wouldn't keep the case in the courts for a prolonged time and it wouldn't require any of the stuff they are asking for in discovery these days. (Not to mention the fact that those who have compared the code can't find any line-for-line copying... not even the millions of lines of line-for-line copying SCO claimed were in Linux when they started this whole mess.)

Even if their claim of viral licensing terms were correct, there is still the question of whether SCO actually even owns ANY of the code it claims it does. Novell (most recent undisputed owner) says that they never sold SySV to SCO... just the right to sell licenses. Even that right was tempered by Novell retaining rights to control the termination of any such license... which they did regarding IBM saying that no SCO could not terminate IBM's license.

Re:Even more code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind that the following idiom will cause product C to contain code from product A: #include

Interstingly (or not) this is only relevant if you're actually distributing the binaries (or some other results of the preprocessing stage). Otherwise, copyright doesn't come into effect (so long as you don't distribute A/header.h, obviously).

Re:Even more code?

[russotto]

Nein. Merely including a header file doesn't necessarily include any code at all. Particularly in C (as opposed to C++, which is more likely to have inline functions). Nor does linking to a shared library -- the code is referenced, not included in the binary. Nor is the _source code_ at all derivative as a result of linking or header file inclusion, regardless of what's in the header file or the type of linking.

Re:Even more code?

[crummynz]

Is it even possible for SCO to suck more?

Where there's a will...

Re:Even more code?

[sfjoe]

Litigation never added value to society at all ...

On the contrary, litigation has added MASSIVE value to society. Without litigation, you'd be pledging allegiance to Standard Oil every morning. That is, if you haven't already been killed by a shoddy, fraudulently-marketed product or poisoned by chemicals leaching into your drinking water.

Re:Even more code?

[ThosLives]

Ah; I should have said, "litigation never added wealth to society".

A subtle difference, yet one of importance.

Re:Even more code?

[sfjoe]

And you'd be wrong about that as well. However the argument over it would quickly descend into deciding what is wealth and what causes its creation, so I'll just leave it here.

Re:Even more code?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Ah; I should have said, "litigation never added wealth to society".

It's made a society of lawyers fabulously rich. Occasionally it helps everyone out: the entire telecom industry in general flourished after the AT&T breakup.

Re:Even more code?

[starm_]

He's not nitpicking, if a person writes the code he can do whatever he likes with it even after he GPLed it. He can put it in another GPL project, put it in another non-GPL project or anywhere else. You just can't take somebody elses code that has been GPLed and use it under another license. You can with your own code. Do you understand the distinction? You have no rights to someone elses GPL code besides the rights he has granted you trough the GPL. (unless you have a contract with that person) You have all rights to the code you wrote. (copyrights)

The reason it would be practicly impossible to buy a commersial licence to Linux's code is because you would have to go see all the contributers and ask their permission(buy the code from them) There are just too many contributors to do this. Theoritically though it is possible. With small GPL projects with few contributors it is possible for a company to buy the code from the contributors. Not so many companies want to do that because they would now be competing against the GPL version that is out there.

Re:Even more code?

[shawn(at)fsu]

I'm sorry but the parent post that you replied to never said anything about writing A. He said licensee A to write B. Did I miss something?

Re:Even more code?

[Anonymous Coward]

> What is seems is that IBM may have gotten System V from SCO and then added some features that were original creations of IBM (to create AIX/Dynix). IBM is then alleged to have given those new features to Linux. SCO is claiming they own those "new" features created by IBM because of some wording in the System V contracts.
> Now, we can all reasonably conclude that this is stupid; if I buy a car and design a new fin for it, then sell the fin design to others, the car companies don't claim the fin design is their property. However, when we purchase a car we don't sign a "derivative works" contract with the car dealer or manufacturer.

Why is this derivative ownership concept foreign to you? The GPL is mostly about derivative ownership, where you must release your derivatives when you release your GPL based software. Thus, if a contract/license specified you may not release your derivatives but you donated them to GNU/Linux anyway, then you have violated the contract/license. Why is any of this relevant to the GPL and not to other contracts or licenses?

Your car analogy is inappropriate to software, so let's use a software analogy instead: If I buy GPL software and I want to sell my derivatives, I shouldn't have to release the source to My work. I have no problems releasing the original GPL code, except I want to keep My derivative work private. I shouldn't lose my freedom to my work.

The BSD community have called the GPL what you called above bullshit for years. Why is the BSD community wrong and you're right? Why is your post insightful, if you don't find the GPL absurd with a label of Freedomware?

Re:Even more code?

[DM9290]

Licences are strane things boyo. I once heared of a licence that extended to all derived works. So if I licenced product A under this licence, and created derived product B from it, and put code I had written for product B into product C, the C would have to be licenced the same as product A.

I bet you've heared of this licence yourself. It's called the GPL.

In the general case your example is wrong.

The only issue is if the "code" you put into product B, is also itself derived from GPL code. It does not follow that simply because B is derived from GPL code, that every single contribution to B was also derived.

It only follows that the new version of B (containing B + "your code") *is* derived. It is derived from whatever the original B contained + "your code".

If the code you put into B ("your code") is also derived from A, then you are not licensed to use that derivation in C without permission from the author of A. This is because "your code" is not really your code, but a rip off of A, and without permission from the author of A, you aren't allowed to rip off his creative work.

On the other hand if the code ("your code") that you contributed to product B, is owned completely by you, then you have the right to contribute it to whatever you like, and you can put it into C freely. (assuming you have the rights to use C)

The author of A upon which B is derived, simply required, that if you create a product which is based on A + "your code", then you agree to license the "your code" under the GPL to all third parties and provide source code.

It does not follow that just because you licensed "your code" to third parties under the GPL, that you lose ownership of it. You still have the right to use "your code" in your own proprietary products however you like. You also have the right to license "your code" to other people under different license terms.

Thus product C doesn't need to rely on the GPL provided that "your code" is truly original work.

Another thing you forget.

The GPL is only a license. It is not an agreement.
It does not FORCE you to do anything. You can put anything you like into product C provided you comply with copyright law.

Basically, if you would have had the right to use "your code" in product C, had product A been completely proprietary, all rights reserved closed source, then you don't lose that right simply because product A is available under the GPL.

Re:Even more code?

[Suicyco]

I think the point is, if you take GPL product A, add code to it to create product B, then take that code you added and place it into a totally different product C, then product C is not covered under the GPL unless you wish it to be.

You can do whatever you wish with your own code, as long as it is not along side somebody elses code. If IBM ripped their own code from AIX, and did not rip any SCO code, then their own code is not derivitive. Only together do they constitute a derived work.

Re:Even more code?

[tricorn]

I don't think that, even if the contract can be properly read to have required IBM to turn over copyright to SCO of any modifications made to SysV, that it would make a difference in whether Linux infringes. If there is no ORIGINAL SysV code in Linux, only code that IBM was contractually obligated to turn over to SCO, then there is no infringement because IBM gave permission by releasing it under the GPL. As IBM had the copyright, they had the right to do so. Until the copyright is turned over to SCO with a WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT, the copyright still belongs to IBM. A contractual obligation to make that assignment doesn't change anything until IBM complies with that obligation. They may be liable for damages, for having damaged the value of the copyrights they were supposed to assign, but it's too late to try to "undo" the release of code already properly released under the GPL. Or at least, that's what I'd think if I was a lawyer, which I'm not.

Re:Even more code?

[Canberra Bob]

"Now, we can all reasonably conclude that this is stupid; if I buy a car and design a new fin for it, then sell the fin design to others, the car companies don't claim the fin design is their property. However, when we purchase a car we don't sign a "derivative works" contract with the car dealer or manufacturer. "

Slightly OT but..

This is the main point of many who prefer the BSD licenses over the GPL. The GPL is just as bad - if you design the fin for the car, as the car is GPL'ed the fin must be GPL'ed also, as it attaches to the car.

Re:Even more code?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, but by logical deduction, if IBM contributed it to Linux, then it's in Linux (apparently). If it isn't 'viewable' in Linux, then IBM either didn't contribute it, or it was inconsequential and dropped. The whole point is: IBM didn't contribute that much to Linux (they did contribute a journalling file system --one of five currently available for Linux, and not the most popular, and the file system came from OS/2, not AIX--, and support for Linux on their big S390/z800/z900 mainframes). They also tried to contribute a new threading model (but the project was cancelled when a competing model was chosen). There are also a few hundred staffers over at IBM who contribute bits and pieces (like SGI, HP, Intel and other tech shops). The 2.6 kernel has a new scheduler --but not contributed by IBM --Andrea Archangeli and Rik van Riel get the thanks--, the 2.6 kernel has complete support for 3 level page tables on 64 bit systems --but not contributed by IBM, has a new device support mechanism called udev --but not supplied by IBM. The 2.6 kernel has NUMA support for massive numbers of processors --IBM, SGI, Hitachi and HP provided guidance and support to kernel developers (I think paid by RedHat). Rusty Rusell gets thanks for IPTABLES/firewall network packet filtering in the kernel, but he doesn't work for IBM. IBM contributed publicly too which is really apprecieated, and supports Linux on all their products, but the truth is that there Linux on 64 bit systems came in 1995 when Alan Cox wrote the Linux port to DEC's Alpha processor --4 years before IBM adopted Linux. SCO's fishing trip is based on a lie. They even tried to get the AT&T vs. UCBerkeley case overturned or at least reopened, because there is code based on OpenBSD in Linux (as there is in the Microsoft TCP/IP stack). The OpenBSD licence allows their code to be reused, so it isn't a problem for either Linux or Microsoft. But UCBerkeley had the case closed with prejudice. A higher court reviewed the case to affirm the findings of the lower court. It can't be reopened. I think SCO went in with blinders on, thinking it would be a cakewalk or a pushover or something. Danm fools!

Re:Even more code?

[Anonymous Coward]

It might be, that derivitive works could be owned by the parent, in some cases, but not this one. When AT&T wrote their Unix, they were trying to get shops to adopt it. Shops were asking about derivitive works, and customers were getting cold. To solve the problem, AT&T officially stated that they would not go after derivitive works, published the statement (Byte, May 1986), and along with it, showed where companies could get a copy of the court document showing the amended, irrevocable, retroactive licence agreement. In US law, an original product licence is binding to any subsequent parties, so SCO can't backtrack from what AT&T allowed. Novell found a copy of the article featuring AT&T's licence amendment, and faxed a copy over to SCO, along with a copy of the amended licence stating 'hands off derivitive works' for the fun of watching SCO squirm. I'm sure it wasn't a happy day over at SCO worldwide headquarters.

Re:Even more code?

[Anarchofascist]

"I once heared of a licence that extended to all derived works. So if I licenced product A under this licence, and created derived product B from it, and put code I had written for product B into product C, the C would have to be licenced the same as product A."

Utterly wrong. If I write code for a GPL product, I can take my code and add it to my own product as well.

Sure, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

who's going to examine the code? SCO doesn't have any developers left, do they?

Re:Sure, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The lawyers...

Re:Sure, but...

[mattyrobinson69]

Ha! I knew it! #inlude is in both of these files!

Re:Sure, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting compiler directive. Never heard of that one before.

Re:Sure, but...

[flibuste]

Are they...outsourced indian lawyers?

Uhm...

[Black Parrot]

Doesn't SCO know about kernel.org?

Re:Uhm...

[killtherat]

Given their apparent grasp of the obvious, I would have to say no. And even if they did, they are probably paying their lawyers by the hour, so it probably took a few months to figure out.

IBM should just pay them off

[Anonymous Coward]

after all, they have tons of money and if they settle, it will only cause harm to their competitors as they don't have tons of money. Either way, they are going to bleed green as this lawsuit continues.

Re:IBM should just pay them off

[chris09876]

Paying them off would admit that SCO's got a case. By fighting them (which they definitely have the resources to do), they're sticking up for the entire community. Way to go IBM!

Re:IBM should just pay them off

[Anonymous Coward]

• Paying them off would admit that SCO's got a case. By fighting them (which they definitely have the resources to do), they're sticking up for the entire community. Way to go IBM!

IBM used to fly in whole plane loads of lawyers to places that caused them problems. The purpose? To poke around and find things to file complaints about and pressure cities/etc. into giving in to IBM. They haven't done that type of stuff in a long while, but it's totally nuts to fight a company with that kind of history, it's not like IBM fired all their lawyers.

While I'm very happy IBM's fighting this, I think it was a foregone conclusion to anyone sane that IBM would rather fight than buy out SCO. One has to wonder what the folks who decided this course of action for SCO were smoking. :)

Re:IBM should just pay them off

[vk2]

If they feed this lame wolf - others might be tempted to take a similar route of blackmailing. Fighting SCOX is an effective way of securing your fort from future attacks.

Re:IBM should just pay them off

[Anonymous Coward]

"One has to wonder what the folks who decided this course of action for SCO were smoking. :)"

Given that the overwhelming majority of people accuse them of crack via the crack pipe, I am going to go out on a limb and guess crystal meth.

Re:IBM should just pay them off

[Technician]

after all, they have tons of money and if they settle, it will only cause harm to their competitors as they don't have tons of money

And this is different than a protection racket how?

You pay them and they never go away. They get stronger and start squeezing others. I'd rather see them wither and die. It's well known how the problem grows. Ever been to Yellowstone National Park. Why do you think there are "don't feed the bears" signs everywhere?

If you feed the bears, they simply become a big problem.

Please don't advise feeding the bears and hope they go away.

Re:IBM should just pay them off

[mattyrobinson69]

I dont think darl mcbride's personal accountant will agree it was a bad move (pump + dump)

Re:IBM should just pay them off

[jamstar7]

More like paying them off would say that it's too difficult and espensive for IBM to prove their case and it would be cheaper to make this go away with the standard sealed nondisclosure agreement, etc, etc, etc. What IBM realises, and the beancounters haven't overruled them on this, is that continuing the fight will get all its IP declared clean and sanitary, forestalling any future attempts by SCO to pick their pockets clean.

Re:IBM should just pay them off

[Chris Burke]

SCO has a case (I know you don't want to hear that but it is true).

Hmm... so either you're an insider with extra information, or you're going solely off of SCO press releases, or you're lying (possibly in combination with option 1 or 2), because in court where it matters they have yet to show anything resembling a case.

That's the whole reason they keep asking for more discovery, you know. They claim there is substantial infringement in Linux. The judge ordered them to show exactly what infringement they were claiming, and SCO's response was that they couldn't. That's why they are fishing -- to try to find a link between SysV code and Linux code through AIX. They don't have one yet. They have absolutely no proof that infringement occured (they were ordered by the court to show any they had, and they showed none), and are hoping that they might find some by digging through yet more AIX code. Let me give you a hint: if they can't find any connection yet, another few interim versions of AIX aren't going to help.

The only question is whether SCO is going to actually allow this to reach a verdict (which they will lose), or run out of money and have to give up their case (swearing the whole way that they had a case).

Re:IBM should just pay them off

[vook]

Any victories that SCO sees are going to take place in Utah courts. Utah is the most conservative and rigid state in the nation, and it is very plausible that SCO will get some breaks there. If the final rulings favor SCO, IBM will of course appeal to a higher court (which will pull even more money from SCO's dwindling coffers).

Bottom line: don't worry about anything that happens in the Utah federal court, because their rulings will likely be overturned in an appeal.

Re:IBM should just pay them off

[sparkz]

Way to go IBM!

I just don't understand this IBM-cheerleading which /. is so full of. So the BigCo is being sued by SmallCo, and we don't like SmallCo's attitude.
Is that world that black-and-white, that we forget everything that BigCo has done? Like, using its patents to kill off competitors, for example?

Okay, IBM was a sucker to MS, way back, but that does not make IBM the underdog. Are you running IBM-Linux? No, nor am I. They'll sell you a flavour of Linux, if you decide you want RedHat or SuSE. They don't really care - you're unlikely to want AIX, so RedHat/SuSE is cheaper for IBM to resell than Windows is. Most of their customers get Windows, though. Reselling 3rd-party Linux distro's is just a (slightly) cheaper way for IBM to sell tin.

What is this compulsion among slashdot that IBM actually contribute anything useful to Linux?

Maybe part of it is the confusion about what "Linux" is, and part of that, is the refusal to accept there is more GNU code than Linux code in a typical distribution. Again, the black-and-white, "Linus is Good, RMS is on an ego trip" attitude.

Go for it - run Linux, without gnu's ls. Install IBM-Linux onto your kit, once it's available.

It's not got to the "emperor has no clothes" stage yet, but it's not far off, is it?

IBM shifts tin; they've presumably contributed to Windows code - at least in feedback, if not in actual lines of C, just as they have with Linux, and lots of surrounding projects. So what?
They are not the underdog, they're just another hardware manufacturer. I don't get it.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME WHAT IBM HAVE DONE FOR "LINUX" (however you define that) MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE.
I can't see this as a "community" thing any more - I used to, but the more it goes on, it's just some contract deal between IBM and USL-or-whoever-they-signed-the-paperwork-with (I forget). Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:IBM should just pay them off

[nadyne]

IBM has done a fair amount for the open source community as a whole, which is more than just Linux.

There's eclipse, which was originally developed by IBM, and which has a sizeable team of IBM developers who work on it. There are other IBM development teams across the world that work directly on Linux. There's the pledge from IBM to not make any patent attacks against Linux. There's the 500 patents that were donated last week for open source use.

ObDisclaimer: I'm an IBMer in the Software Group, although I don't work on anything that's open source, and none of my patents are included in the 500 that were released. /nm

OS/2

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasnt the code released OS/2 Linux or are SCO just trying another lawsuit? (or stupid)

SCO loses the waiting game

[bigtallmofo]

This is just another meaningless delay of the case. Such things are actually a victory for IBM. IBM can afford to have this drag on forever. SCO's days are numbered.

Re:SCO loses the waiting game

[hamjudo]

SCOX is going to lose, it is only a question of when.

This is a personal win for Darl, since he will continue to get his million dollar SCO CEO salary for a little bit longer.

Re:SCO loses the waiting game

[wayne606]

The SCO execs could have options that take a while to vest, so if SCO hangs on a bit longer it's good for them. Or maybe they have vested options that are underwater and getting a little bounce in the stock price will let them unload. Or maybe they or their backers want a better price to sell shares they currently own. Or maybe the SCO execs are getting paid under the table by Microsoft to drag things out as long as possible. Could be a lot of reasons.

Re:SCO loses the waiting game

[hackstraw]

This is just another meaningless delay of the case. Such things are actually a victory for IBM. IBM can afford to have this drag on forever. SCO's days are numbered.

No, its perfectly acceptable delay for SCO to ask IBM if they can see more of Linux code.

WTF? I thought Linux was open source? Maybe the article meant to say AIX code.

I would not weigh too much with this article besides this. Looking at one of their advertiser's, one of those fraudulent diploma mills, I doubt they have too much credibility.

Is _everything_ that comes from Salt Lake City, UT a scam or what?

Re:SCO loses the waiting game

[Anonymous Coward]

I was looking forward to two things this month.

1. The Titan probe on the 14th (which worked).
2. SCO's case against Novell should come to end on the 20th when Novell shows that evidence they came up with (knock on wood).

I noticed that SCO's stock has jumped about 25%.
The short traders must be going completely nuts today.

Re:SCO loses the waiting game

[CmdrGravy]

"WTF? I thought Linux was open source? Maybe the article meant to say AIX code."

Yes it did, I think that SCO were asking for any code which is connected to AIX in any way. This really isn't about Linux at all it's about SCO accusing IBM of breaking it's Unix SYS V licence by incorporating code which may be in some way derivitive from SYS V code into something else. It just so happens the something else is Linux.

I think the judge has ordered this extra discovery largely to shut up SCO's whining that valuable information is being withheld from them, it doesn't do IBM any harm at all except delaying the whole thing a bit more.

Even if SCO find any of this code which may have been derived from Unix and then has somehow inspired code that is in Linux they are still going to have a lot of trouble proving that IBM isn't allowed to do that in the first place.

Re:SCO loses the waiting game

[grungefade]

SCO may go bankrupt, but their lawyers will still be fighting for them till they see the end of this case. Because their lawyers put a cap on how much they get paid, and promised to see this case to the end on that amount. I cant remember the exact amount, but for some reason 30 million comes to mind.

Re:SCO loses the waiting game

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? I thought Linux was open source? Maybe the article meant to say AIX code.

Maybe they not only meant to say AIX, but they actually did say AIX:

Wells refused to grant SCO complete review of all of the IBM programs it listed, but threatened to grant "unfettered access" in the future if IBM fails to provide all data - including approximately 2 billion lines of code - from its AIX and Dynix systems.

Re:SCO loses the waiting game

[tindur]

And if the case isn't solved by SCO it might be sold to somebody else (like DR-DOS) and the circus will start all over again.

Re:SCO loses the waiting game

[alw53]

Ahem, these are lawyers. One does not get arbitrary amounts of effort out of an attorney in exchange for fixed amounts of money, no matter what their agreement says.

Is it "the skies are (not cloudy) all day" or "the skies are not (cloudy all day)"?

Re:SCO loses the waiting game

[andymac]

SCO has an agreement in place with their legal counsel, whereby SCO pays a fixed amount of $ to the firm, and anything over that amount is covered by the legal firm. Can't recall the amount where the legal firm is on their own dime, or, if SCO were to (ha ha) win the case, if the firm would receive additional compensation. Hmm... better go check on Groklaw...

So the waiting game is actually not that difficult for SCO - from the perspective of having resources to pay for legal costs. In fact, the single most used tactic by SCO has been delay delay delay...

What IBM needs to do is give them SO MUCH info that SCO simply cannot make heads or tails of it, forcing them to go back to the judge and cry "waaah, there's too much info and it's so confusing... make IBM explain it to us!" At which point the judge will (hopefully) say something along the lines of "bite my shiny metal ass (or the equivalent) and either do it yourself or I'll dismiss."

Re:SCO loses the waiting game

[Anonymous Coward]

If SCO goes out of business, their "intellectual property" will be picked up by another shell company set up by Microsoft and the case will be continued under their name. This whole lawsuit is a desperate stop gap measure by Microsoft to slow down Linux while they figure out something else to kill it with.

Re:SCO loses the waiting game

[Lord_Dweomer]

"This is just another meaningless delay of the case. Such things are actually a victory for IBM. IBM can afford to have this drag on forever. SCO's days are numbered.

You're not joking. Talk about a dumb move.

Repeat after me: You do NOT try to play the waiting game against the 800 lb. gorilla who out-waited the U.S. GOVERNMENT!

Re:SCO loses the waiting game

[HiThere]

As I understand it, IANAL, when SCOX goes into bankruptcy others will be appointed to manage their affairs. Valuables cannot just be given away, or sold for a dime on a dollar until AFTER IBM's suit against SCOX has been settled. The executors will probably try to come to some kind of deal with IBM, and they won't have the same interests as the current executives.

One interesting question is, who will appoint the bankruptcy executors, and what will their interests be. It may happen that they would willingly give IBM total access to all internal records as a part of settling the suits. After that, Canopy might be next on the chopping block, and perhaps further.

It's not at all clear who would win if SCOX went bankrupt with the cases unsettled.

Re:SCO loses the waiting game

[infinidim]

Ahh, waiting game sucks.

Let's play Hungry, Hungry Hippos!

Re:SCO loses the waiting game

[mrchaotica]

Except that as long as the case is still dragging on, it's casting a shadow over industries' view of Linux. I'd personally rather the judge said "go fuck yourselves" to SCO now and get it over with.

Re:SCO loses the waiting game

[vsprintf]

One interesting question is, who will appoint the bankruptcy executors, and what will their interests be. It may happen that they would willingly give IBM total access to all internal records as a part of settling the suits.

I'm not at all familiar with bankruptcy, but aren't companies in (Ch. 11) bankruptcy allowed to put their own plan forward and remain in control if the court agrees? It seems like Northwestern Corp and a some airlines (to mention a few) have done so.

Re:SCO loses the waiting game

[ninewands]

This is true, but I do not believe SCOX to be a viable candidate for Chapter 11. One of the most important requirements of a Chapter 11 plan is that the unsecured creditors must receive more under the plan than they would in a Chapter 7 (liquidation) bankruptcy. Since SCOX has nothing (Unixware? ... oh come now) that will generate enough of a revenue stream to provide this $ > 0 amont of money I seriously doubt they could get a Chapter 11 plan approved by the court.

There is a sort of hybrid Chapter 11 bankruptcy option available in which the court appoints a trustee to oversee a prolonged liquidation of the company's assets, rather than seel them off at "fire sale" prices, but I seriously doubt that SCOX has sufficient salable assets to justify the trustee's and lawyers' fees that a Chapter 11 liquidation invariably generates and still produce an increased payout to the unsecureds.

Re:SCO loses the waiting game

[vsprintf]

Digging through the archives looking for SCO news, eh? :)

This is true, but I do not believe SCOX to be a viable candidate for Chapter 11. One of the most important requirements of a Chapter 11 plan is that the unsecured creditors must receive more under the plan than they would in a Chapter 7 (liquidation) bankruptcy. Since SCOX has nothing (Unixware? ... oh come now) that will generate enough of a revenue stream to provide this $ > 0 amont of money I seriously doubt they could get a Chapter 11 plan approved by the court.

That makes sense. Thanks for the info. I suppose if Canopy were motivated, they could make the board dump the lawyers and the "new" management (and most of the old management) and continue to sell their two products at a small profit. Although it's probably not worth the effort for a sinking ship.

Ummmm

[Wordsmith]

Haven't read the article yet, so I'm sure this will be cleared up in a minute when I do, but ... Turn over it's linux-related code? Isn't that what EVERYONE who distributes linux does?

Re:Ummmm

[jonnystiph]

It's not "Linux" code they are after. Please RTFA.

"Wells refused to grant SCO complete review of all of the IBM programs it listed, but threatened to grant "unfettered access" in the future if IBM fails to provide all data - including approximately 2 billion lines of code - from its AIX and Dynix systems."

Re:Ummmm

[arkanes]

The article doesn't have all the detail - Groklaw has some more precise information. To clarify, SCO already had all the source for all released versions of AIX and Dynix, what they're getting now is (limited) access to intermediate versions of files (changesets between releases) and programmer notes.

Re:Ummmm

[PigleT]

Wasn't there an occasion when some expert chap reviewed some source code, critically with the understanding being that if code was copied and then edited such that it no longer resembled the original, it was no longer a copy?

As such, what good would examining intermediate versions cause? Either copied sources are present in the initial import and release versions, or it's irrelevant.

Turn over?

[drafalski]

Couldn't SCO have downloaded it from one of the many mirrors by now?

Re:Turn over?

[Secrity]

Which mirrors have IBM's Dynix and AIX source code on them?

Re:Turn over?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look hard enough I'm sure you'll find a .torrent *somewhere*

Now's the time to sell.

[AceCaseOR]

SCO's stock price is going up

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[metlin]

*adjusts tinfoil hat*

You know, you're probably joking but you do have a point.

Perhaps the whole point of this was to have an increase in SCOs stocks so that folks have the opportunity to dump and jump the ship.

These days when laws are written by the rich and bought over by the powerful, you never know =)

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[smutz]

last call to sell em... last call to take the money and run...

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[doublem]

These days when laws are written by the rich and bought over by the powerful, you never know =)

Your comment implies there was a time when it was any other way.

The person who has the gold has ALWAYS written the rules.

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[Chicks_Hate_Me]

Umm I think it was time to sell about a year ago :P

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[OwlWhacker]

I'd like to find out who's buying SCO shares, I have some magic beans that I could sell them...

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[metlin]

You've hit the nail on the head. I'm taking a class on IP Law this semester; when I brought up something about the law being equal, the professor said something along the lines of, "You have fallen for the myth of law being equal and a bringer of justice of sorts - that has never been the case. It has been to help preserve the status quo of the powerplay in the society".

Wonder why we bother with all the equality and all that bullshit, though.

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I recall correctly, today is the day the Novell goes back to the court room with evidence that they atleast thought they were the owners of Unix IP which should be enough to get that case brought by SCO kicked out.

It should be a REALLY easy day to sell short.
Atleast until SCO loses today's case.

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[doublem]

Wonder why we bother with all the equality and all that bullshit, though.

Because peasant revolts have always been messy affairs that are best avoided.

If the masses think the laws are there to enforce justice, and the media is "Fair and Biased" they won't notice they're being manipulated and controlled for the benefit of the wealthy.

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[reed]

Maybe, but hang onto your IBM shares...

SCOX vs IBM and S&P:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=SCOX&l= off&z= m&q=l&c=IBM&c=%5EGSPC

That one really tells you a lot about SCO's prospects..

SCOX is currently about 4 at 200k volume average, IBM is mid 90s at 5M volume average...

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[reed]

That's a five year chart btw.

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[Chris Burke]

Perhaps the whole point of this was to have an increase in SCOs stocks so that folks have the opportunity to dump and jump the ship.

Perhaps? You're an optimist. :)

While down from 20+ during the lawsuit FUD peak, SCO's stock is still well above where it was before this litigation started. During that entire period, all the executives have been selling off large amounts of stock at regular intervals. These pre-scheduled sales are fairly normal and aren't illegal, so they won't grab the SEC's attention... But they are still extremely profitable. As long as SCO can keep the FUD rolling and their stock price artificially inflated above $0.50, the insiders are profiting handily.

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[jbolden]

This is basically the core idea of Leninism. Amazing how the victory of capitalism over socialism has made capitalism so terrible that socialist ideas are being generated again and widely believed. It could almost imply that capitalism shouldn't have won in the first place.... maybe the victory of a bunch of highly technological states over much less advanced ones had causes other than economic systems and the other side did remarkably well given their initial disadvantages.... maybe the revolution in russia really was subverted like Gorbachev claimed....

Nah couldn't be.

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[doublem]

This is basically the core idea of Leninism.

And the USSR showed us nicely that when one human has power over another, someone gets oppressed.

Then there's anarchy. After about 20 minutes of Anarchy, feudalism ensues.

All things considered, at least having to pretend that the law is designed to make things fair gives the masses an edge. The existence of the middle class really is a good thing. It means the power and might of the wealthy relies at least partially on the economic welfare of the masses. IF you oppress the middle class too much, your own fortunes begin to decline. That's one reason Communism needed to do away with the middle class, such as it was in Russia. If they could get rid of it, the main source of "New Money" would be gone.

Keep in mind, the commercialization of technology is one of the things that made it possible for the US to develop so much of it. Boeing has a Hell of a lot more money to spend on the next fighter plane if it's bottom line was kept strong by the sale of passenger planes, and those passenger planes need middle class businessmen riding in them for any economy of scale to kick in.

Is it Capitalism combined with a democracy a terrible arrangement?

Yes.

Is there anything better out there that gives the masses more freedom, safety and "rights"?

Nope.

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[jbolden]

My point is that since the disappearence of socialism as an alternative the capitalist system is becoming so blatently unfair that essentially they are no longer even pretending the system is fair. That is we are becoming much more like the 19th century system where people didn't even believe the government was their ally.

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[doublem]

Hence, Bush's war on the middle class, and the strengthening of Corporations as the new rulers and monarchs of the economy.

Remember, Robocop and Robocop II were not Science-Fiction movies, but a prediction of the social future of the country, with a science fiction B plot about cyborgs thrown in to keep people interested.

OCP, the new rulers of the world.

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, it's almost as if people here haven't been saying that over and over since the SCO thing began.

That would have been some great insight like a year ago.

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[vsprintf]

If the masses think the laws are there to enforce justice, and the media is "Fair and Biased" they won't notice they're being manipulated and controlled for the benefit of the wealthy.

You've been watching FOX news, haven't you?

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[vsprintf]

Keep in mind, the commercialization of technology is one of the things that made it possible for the US to develop so much of it. Boeing has a Hell of a lot more money to spend on the next fighter plane if it's bottom line was kept strong by the sale of passenger planes, and those passenger planes need middle class businessmen riding in them for any economy of scale to kick in.

Boeing is a poor example to use. The company is in a death spiral because, like so many other American companies, the management has been systematically liquidating the value that was earned through decades of R&D and giving it to a few people at the top who don't care about that or any other company. It's very sad - capitalism at its worst.

Re:Now's the time to sell.

[Anonymous Coward]

These days when laws are written by the rich and bought over by the powerful

lol as opposed to the past? The british empire, the romans, the greeks, doesn't matter...point is, the law was always written by the rich and bought over by the powerful. Not much has changed in a 1000 years mate. Just some minor redecorating.

Linux is open-source

[damicatz]

Last time I checked the Linux Kernel was open-source. So why does IBM have to turn over open-source code to SCO? Are they really that lazy that they can't get it off the internet?

Re:Linux is open-source

[superpulpsicle]

Seemed normal and
Caught in
Opensource

Re:Linux is open-source

[mikael]

The argument from SCO is that they collaborated with IBM to provide various UNIX solutions (Dynix etc...) . Their argument is that any source code that was added to Dynix shouldn't be in the Linux kernel. Going by the UNIX time line, the last time anything was transferred from SCO to AIX was in 1992-1993.

Go R. Enderle!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you have a nugget to work with to bolster your pathetic position about "everything" in relation to this mess.

How long till we see you chime in?

Re:Go R. Enderle!!!

[Dav3K]

lol - I wasn't sure if I should mod you funny or insightful for that post. So I left it up to those with mods to burn.

Can somebody please tell me what does this mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does this actually mean for the case?
Is $CO winning?
How does this effect the case as a whole?
What do $CO think they will find in the new code?

John.
UK.
Linux User.

Nothing to see here really

[Psionicist]

To quote Groklaw:

Finally, it has arrived, Judge Brooke Wells' Order on SCO's Motion Re Discovery. It's annoying because she enables more delay, but other than that it is a pretty normal discovery order. SCO doesn't get access to CMVC, they do get more code and they get not all programmers' notes but some. She postpones any decision on production of documents from top managment. Keep in mind, she isn't the trier of fact. That is Judge Kimball. She is the Magistrate, so it's not her job to decide who is right or wrong. Her job is simply to make sure everybody's cards are on the table.

Re:Nothing to see here really

[retinaburn]

SCO doesn't get access to CMVC

. Jesus let them have access. Let them track the defects through the levels and releases back to the source and try and find their code. Better yet just give them a windows client to connect to the remote machine over a slow network link. Twenty minutes and they will give up, pack their bags, and return to the centre of the earth.

Re:Nothing to see here really

[kuwan]

It's possible that Judge Kimball could make Judge Wells' ruling moot when/if he ever rules on IBM's Partial Summary Judgment motion. Wells has to favor SCO in that she has to consider the possibility that giving them what they want might improve their case.

I'm hoping that since Wells has likely been advising with Kimball on this that Kimball's decision will come soon on IBM's PSJ motion. I'm also hoping that goes in IBM's favor since it would pretty much kill all of SCO's other lawsuits.

--
Join the Pyramid - Free Mini Mac

Re:Nothing to see here really

[God of Lemmings]

Correct, PJ goes on to say that "...so IBM will have to go to the expense and take the time to sort through everything and comply. They can go back and explain why they can't do X or Y and ask her to revise her Order, and they could appeal"
So really, where we are is, IBM can just go to Judge Well's office and say how impossible or impractical the order is, which is what they have been doing all along, or they can comply in a humorous manner and bury sco's lawyers in truckloads of documentation (~5-10,000 reams of paper!), and both don't matter anyway because Judge Kimball understands what is going on.

Guilty until proven innocent?

[FortKnox]

IANAL, far from, actually, but shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't SCO be releasing code to an independent party to determine if its copyright has been breeched? Or will they keep requesting more code and fish around for something they can 'try to claim' is a copyright violation?

Re:Guilty until proven innocent?

[fshalor]

I agree... this way all SCO has to di is say "AhHa!!"

Re:Guilty until proven innocent?

[hackstraw]

Guilty until proven innocent is in _criminal_ cases. This is a civil case. Anyone can sue anybody for basically any reason. There is no innocence or guilt determined in a civil case, only liability and degree of liability.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent?

[AvitarX]

What are they supposed to compare it too?

Re:Guilty until proven innocent?

[FortKnox]

touche. Thanks for clearing that up (as I said... IINAL) :-)

Re:Guilty until proven innocent?

[Secrity]

This is a fishing expedition on SCO's part. They have no idea what IBM may have done wrong, they just want to look at IBM's shit to see if they can find something. There is no guilt or innocence in this case as it is a civil matter. According to SCO this case is not about a copyright violation, it is about a contract violation.

From all appearances, it seems that SCO is no longer trying to show that Linux contains any actual copied code. In the IBM case, SCO is desperately trying to find anything that might show that somebody from IBM provided code to the Linux kernel that was derived from Sys V code. This would would be a contract violation and not a copyright violation.

From the "certification" that was the centerpiece of the Daimler Chrysler suit and from statements made by SCO folks (such as Darl McBride), it appears to me that the SCO folks are trying to say that SCO owns Unix, and because Linux is actually a type of Unix, SCO believes that it also owns Linux. Yeah, I know that it sounds screwy; SCO is forgetting many things, such as it is not known which parts of Unix, if any, are actually owned by SCO.

I think that at first, SCO sued IBM in an attempt to get IBM to buy them out. Now that it is obvious that IBM would rather fight than buy, SCO is going on a giant fishing expedition. I believe that the magistrate and the judge in the case would rather indulge SCO during discovery so that SCO has less of a chance of appealing the case when they lose.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent?

[MORB]

Apparently, they focused their efforts on delaying the trial. From what is said on Groklaw, the judge hope that by conceeding more discovery to SCO, they will run out of legitimate reasons to delay things even more. Also, as I understand it, if they're not given what they ask now, it might give them ground to appeal when^H^H^H^Hif they loose.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent?

[iabervon]

Even in criminal cases, the prosecution only needs "probable cause" to be able to collect evidence. Obviously, nobody would ever be proven guilty if you couldn't gather evidence against someone presumed innocent.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent?

[PMuse]

Shouldn't SCO be releasing code to an independent party to determine if its copyright has been breeched?

(a) Court cases don't use "independent" third-parties (except very rarely). Inevitably, whichever side lost would complain afterward that the third-party was somehow biased. Instead, the two sides (whose biases are obvious) each make their best pitch to the court/jury. Then, the court/jury decides what/who to believe.

(b) Doesn't IBM _have_ SCO's code? IBM is/was a longtime licensee.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent?

[Anonymous Coward]

breached has an 'a' in it, moron

1. Sentences start with capital letters, moron.
2. Declarative sentences end with a period, moron.
3. Cited words are surrounded by quotation marks, moron.
4. American punctuation style uses double quotes to set off words and letters, moron.

Thus, moron, you should have written it as follows:
"Breached" has an "a" in it, moron.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent?

[KarmaMB84]

Suspects are presumed to be guilty by the police and prosecutor. The courts consider them innocent because they have to be proven guilty for the court to consider them otherwise.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent?

[Dausha]

Who modded parent Informative? "Guilty until proven innocent in _criminal_ cases." WTF?! That's bass-ackwards. It's "innocent until proven guilty."

As far as suing anybody for anything, that's only partly true. Lawyers can be (figuratively) tarred an feathered for initiating a suit they know to be wrong. So, you may want to sue, but lawyers tend to have to perform a little CYA first.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent?

[medvezhatnik]

What's IANAL ?
Hopefully that's what Darl gets when he does to jail :-)

Re:Guilty until proven innocent?

[ozbird]

It's "innocent until proven guilty."

Tell that to the campers at sunny Guantanimo Bay.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent?

[jbolden]

Somebody from IBM provided code to the Linux kernel that was derived from Sys V code. This would would be a contract violation and not a copyright violation.

Actually it wouldn't. Much as SCO alleges this the contract never says anything of the sort. SCO still would have to show that the Sys V code from AIX was derived from the Monterey code (1) which SCO brought to the table (2). Two more steps to get to the contract violation even being specific enough.

Then SCO has to go further and show the ideas really were secrets (3) and thus Linux has secrets....

Re:Guilty until proven innocent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who modded parent Informative? "Guilty until proven innocent in _criminal_ cases." WTF?! That's bass-ackwards. It's "innocent until proven guilty."

Whatever; you're lambasting him for a slip of the tongue that has nothing to do with the overall point of his post, which was that civil cases only involve liability, which was a correct point to make.

Go pull the log out of your ass and take a sedative.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent?

[iabervon]

But the courts issue warrents, and do so on the basis of finding that it is probable that they will yield evidence. It would lead to a completely disfunctional system if, since the suspect had not been proven guilty, the court must assume that they are innocent and that, therefore, the police are unlikely to find evidence of guilt and must deny all warrents which pertain only to a particular suspect.

meanwhile...

[kidlinux]

Has SCO been ordered to show any code of theirs that they claim has been infringed upon?

So IBM turns over some code, and SCO says "yep, all of that is an infringement, pay up!" How do we know otherwise?

Re:meanwhile...

[SpaceLifeForm]

They were ordered to do so twice but never did. The orders were by this same Judge Wells yet she never enforced her own order!

Re:meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

According to SCO they *need* all this AIX and Dynx code to find out what's theirs in Linux.

I know, I know, didn't they say they already had mountains of evidence? Well it turns out that they don't. You'd think that mattered, but that's why you ANAL.

Re:meanwhile...

[zoftie]

rank post above informative :)

Re:meanwhile...

[iabervon]

Their theory of the law is that they own (or rather, can restrict) the code that IBM wrote. So SCO can't turn over "their" code, because they've never had it. They want to compare all of the code that IBM wrote for UNIX with the code that IBM wrote for Linux, so that they can argue that IBM's contract prohibits doing this. The judge which issued this ruling isn't supposed to rule on whether SCO's theory of the law is correct, so she can't really deny SCO's motion on the basis of it being a complete waste of time. On the other hand, the other judge could rule that IBM copying its own code into Linux would be perfectly fine if they did it, so this discovery is unnecessary.

Re:meanwhile...

[sparkz]

Because, according to their theory, the same stuff can be found on kernel.org (which is just as accessible from internal.sco.com as from anywhere else).

They don't need to hand over "their" code - they're not talking about anything they've written in-house, they're saying that IBM wrote stuff for SysV, and then put it into Linux. SCO don't know what IBM put into AIX and/or Dynix any more than you or I know. They think the license they bought from USL entitles them to the code, though.

I'd have thought that the sensible thing to do would be to work out if SCO's argument holds true before delving into the code - after all, courts are much better at dealing with details in contracts than they are at working out what bits of C code look like other bits of C code....

It's simple

[$RANDOMLUSER]

SCO couldn't find anything conclusive in the 900 milion lines of code they've already gotten from IBM, so they have to fishing again.

Uhh Darl, you're fifteen minutes are up.

Re:It's simple

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no no no.

It's fourteen and a HALF right now!

So nanny nanny poo poo.

Re:It's simple

[Zocalo]

so they have to fishing again.

Actually, when it's a scam like this, it's usually spelt "phishing".

Re:It's simple

[slapout]

They've probably already let all their IT staff go. So there's no one their to review it. Maybe they've outsourced it....or maybe there's a bunch of lawyers sitting around reading "Learn C in 21 Days" :-)

A glimmer of hope

[nebulus4]

If at all possible, SCO's going to be even more insufferable now -- it has a glimmer of hope.

One, two, three... and now it's gone again.

BSD......

[big-giant-head]

So is it time to jump to BSD yet?? Just kidding..

However those headless macs do look kinda nice for those of us that prefer/require small foot print computing.

I don't think this means much, except that SCO buys themselves a little respite from the inevitable.

Re:BSD......

[Anonymous Coward]

And you can even run linux on them...

Re:BSD......

[Anonymous Coward]

> So is it time to jump to BSD yet?? Just kidding..

BSD is dead!! Just kidding..

Re:BSD......

[Anonymous Coward]

Just what do you think will be next? SCO will take their stolen billions and unfounded claims and go home?

The good news is, if SCO prevails pretty much any random idiot could use the same tactics to win a copyright infringement case with nonexistant code. So all of you who want to have Bill's money, well if SCO wins, you can!

Re:BSD......

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux, Start counting your days. Tearless farewell,

It's not about linux kernel

[Baramin]

from TFA :

Wells refused to grant SCO complete review of all of the IBM programs it listed, but threatened to grant "unfettered access" in the future if IBM fails to provide all data - including approximately 2 billion lines of code - from its AIX and Dynix systems

If Ya Want It...

[Bios_Hakr]

I'd pipe the code into a *.doc file and make the font about 48ish tahoma script.

Then print it on standard paper.

Hey, SCO, you might wanna bring a truck.

Re:If Ya Want It...

[cyberfunk2]

No no no, they need to print out the assembly code. Uh.. yes... we coded in assembly back in the day... we didnt use that C stuff... yea.

It'd take them decades to try to see their code in there, and hopefully they'd be gone by then.

Re:If Ya Want It...

[Anonymous Coward]

As if Word could actually handle that much text without choking.

Re:If Ya Want It...

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't forget to cc Magistrate Judge Wells.

Re:If Ya Want It...

[Jim_Maryland]

How about punch cards or microfilm/microfiche? I'm sure both of those would be a pain to go through.

I'd guess that they'll have a requirement for a reasonable delivery method but thinking about making it difficult adds to the humor.

Re:If Ya Want It...

[Stevyn]

Yeah, but how long would it taken openoffice to open the .doc file?

Re:If Ya Want It...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure SCO is using all Microsoft products. Probably got them free.

Re:If Ya Want It...

[jellomizer]

I did something similar but reverse in college. A College Professor who was grossly incompetent (In both Computer Science Knowledge and Teaching), wanted to teach a course in Database Theory. She wanted the CS Department to buy and install Oracle (She though Oracle was a Server Side Web Development Language, which oracle may have produced, but she wanted the database server) on a Sun Ultra 1. After explaining that this will not happen because of the Cost and complexity of oracle and none of us have the time to be a full time oracle administrator we agreed on MySQL. Then after installing MySQL she wanted the documentation for it. So I piped the documentation file into a2ps with 8 pages per 1 page duplexed. And stamped it in a binder and stuffed it in her mailbox (Ripping some papers in there). That binder was in her mailbox for weeks and then it was gone and I never heard about it again. She probably have never even opened it up. And I feel sorry for that sucker student who actually takes a class with her, where she gives him a project to learn about MySQL and she hands him the book of the unreadable font.

Re:If Ya Want It...

[0123456789]

Surely more convenient for everyone to fax it to them...

Re:If Ya Want It...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd pipe the code into a *.doc file and make the font about 48ish tahoma script.

Somehow, I don't think the Magistrate judge would be amused. Both sides have already been playing silly buggers with the format discovery is produced in.

Re:If Ya Want It...

[wintermute740]

" I'd pipe the code into a *.doc file and make the font about 48ish tahoma script.

Then print it on standard paper.

Hey, SCO, you might wanna bring a truck."

I'd go one further, and print it on greenbar paper, but that might make it easier to read ;)

ob /.

[SpongeBobLinuxPants]

Their /. bussiness plan is going to work!

1. Sue big company with superiour OS and claim IP
2. Use court ordered code in our new OS
3. PROFIT!!!

Straight from the courthouse steps?

[sphealey]

The Yahoo Finance Board, ip-wars, and Groklaw all had the story yesterday.

sPh

Is it just me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is this going against common, blatant logic?

If SCO was SO DAMN SURE Linux was violating SCO Unix code...

1. Why don't they show where the hell Linux is violating anything, as they haven't yet?
2. Why do they need to see more of IBM's code if they knew it was violating? Doesn't that go against logic that if they knew IBM's code was violating their IP that they wouldn't need IBM to point it out for them?
3. Why hasn't anyone in power said any of this before me?

I'm sorry if I'm being really stupid at this point, but the things I've just said seemingly have not been taken into account by the courts, or even SCO.

I hate to say it, but this and the AntiTrust Microsoft Case seem too parallel in taste. No one does the obvious thing. But I guess that's the whole point SCO is trying to make - save the obvious for last so your competition is tired out and the consumers refuse to touch the product because of the floating legality. Has anyone slammed SCO for giving out 'licenses' to code they don't even legally own at this point?

Re:Is it just me...

[CmdrGravy]

1. Why don't they show where the hell Linux is violating anything, as they haven't yet?

Their theory appears to be that although they apparently can't find any code they own in Linux IBM has access to that code and may have used code a bit like it in their AIX which was then altered again and found it's way into Linux.

2. Why do they need to see more of IBM's code if they knew it was violating? Doesn't that go against logic that if they knew IBM's code was violating their IP that they wouldn't need IBM to point it out for them?

Despite everything they may have said in the Media about MIT deep divers and billions of lines of infringing code they don't actually have any proof at all except for IBM press releases where they say they are going to help improve Linux. The theory seems to be that IBM is incapable of developing improvements to Linx without using SCO's magical code.

As you say SCO doesn't actually own any of this code in the first place and simply has the power to manage the licences which are ultimately held by Novell, the fact that SCO are still paying something like 90% of the money they get from their licenee's back to Novell is a good indication that regardless of the image they present in the media this is actually the case.

The case SCO is fighting with Novell is about who actually owns the licence and if Novell win that then the IBM case will probably collapse anyway. Since SCO's evidence in that case relies on a deeply illogical reading of the various contracts between themselves and Novell I think Novell should easily win.

Re:Is it just me...

[Chris Burke]

If SCO was SO DAMN SURE Linux was violating SCO Unix code...

They're really only sure in the press. In court, where facts are actually analyzed for truth, the story is a lot different...

1. Why don't they show where the hell Linux is violating anything, as they haven't yet?

The theory they're running with is that the code was inserted into AIX/Dynix a long time ago, and eventually worked its way into Linux, but over many revisions in the interim changed so that it no longer looks like the original SysV code, but still is the original SysV code from a copyright standpoint. That's why they can't find it in Linux, because it looks different now.

In reality, as opposed to "Darl Land", they don't have a leg to stand on and they know it. This is all just stall tactics and more attempts to get in the press with "SCO victories" to keep their stock from completely tanking while all the execs sell off their shares

2. Why do they need to see more of IBM's code if they knew it was violating?

To prove their assinine theory. They need to be able to show the original insertion of SysV code, and all the subsequent changes to it before it went into Linux so that they can prove that the current Linux code, which looks nothing like the SysV code, is actually the SysV code.

Which is of course completely at odds with their public statements regarding code in Linux. Their "experts" -- who they have failed to produce in court -- went over Linux and found tons of blatant infringements according to Darl. Apparently, what you say to the press can be a complete lie and so long as you don't reproduce that lie in court you're okay. Very few of their public statements about the evidence they have made it into their court briefs. Odd, that.

3. Why hasn't anyone in power said any of this before me?

IBM has been saying this repeatedly. They've been basically mocking SCO's inability to actually find anything incriminating, and their failure under court order to show what code in Linux is actually infringing.

As to the Judge -- the issue isn't actually at trial yet, as discovery is still ongoing (and going and going and going...). They have been ordered to show infringing code, and SCO's response was "we can't until we see all IBM code, ever". Judge Kimball is not completely unaware of what B.S. this is, and has noted as much, but not really done anything about it. The going theory at Groklaw is that she is being judicious, and giving SCO as much rope as they need to hang themself so that any decision she makes is going to be rock-solid on appeal.

So far all that is going on is pre-trial discovery. Eventually (assuming SCO still has money to litigate with) these issues are going to be evaluated and if SCO isn't doing a lot better in the actual evidence department, they're going to get screwed.

But not really. This whole time regularly scheduled (so the SEC doesn't think they're timed) sell-offs by the execs have been occuring, and with SCO's bloated price they're making a killing off all the FUD and delays. When the case collapses -- and it will, there's no real doubt anymore -- Darl and friends will have already made their millions, and it is the rest of SCO that will suffer as the remaining employees are layed off and the assets liquidated. If history is any indication, Darl will quit just before this happens and sue what remains of SCO to grab another hunk off the carcass.

And then some other moron will give him a job.

In BINARY

[AtariAmarok]

"I'd pipe the code into a *.doc file and make the font about 48ish tahoma script."

Make sure to print the code in binary representation. Hey, the printing will denude all the forests of the western hemisphere, but it is worth it to stick it to ol' SCO.

Re:In BINARY

[EvilAlien]

Ferget that... if we're willing to destroy the forests to stick it to SCO, we ought to be willing to march en mass to even SCO office and sack/pillage them out of existance, barbarian horde style. Leave the damn forests alone, haven't they suffered enough?

Re:In BINARY

[Non Est Tanti]

In the name of accessibility, it should be in Braille.

Re:In BINARY

[AtariAmarok]

"In the name of accessibility, it should be in Braille"

With accompanying audiotape as well: "One Zero One One Zero Zero One Zero Zero Zero One...."

Re:In BINARY

[YetAnotherDave]

Customs Officer: Purpose for visiting the US

Me: Sacking and Pillaging the SCO offices

Customs Officer: Sorry, I think their lawyers just left with the last of the valuables. But feel free to go look for yourself...

Suspicious

[Pan T. Hose]

This starts to look very suspicious to me. I think I will wait few months at most and demand my money back if SCO don't prove their case. I'm glad that I bought and sold SCOX on exactly optimal time, or otherwise I would feel kind of stupid for buying all of those licenses to run 140 Debian boxen in my lab, and 60 Red Hat desktops in the library. Has anyone tried to return the license yet?

Re:Suspicious

[Johan Veenstra]

You're kidding right?

Re:Suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

you have a PHD and were stupid enough to buy SCO licenses?

hey know any PHD's that want to buy a bridge or possibly a few million acres of oceanfront property in california?

Re:Suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent's nick is Pan T. Hose. Take a guess if he's serious or not.

Re:Suspicious

[tindur]

Don't return them. They will be collectors items.

On the Upside

[Kurt Wall]

Well, as much as this annoys me, Judge Wells is right. SCO gets to look at still more code, but when they still don't find anything, SCO will have nothing left to say. There's nothing there there, and this order ought to establish that fact once and for all.

No Copyright Code in Linux

[RichMan]

SCO has already failed to produce any real evidence of Copyright code in Linux. Nothing produced by SCO from any of this evidence can change that. Everyone using Linux is safe.

This request is to support SCO's weird derivative tale that despite AT&T contracts saying IBM was free to develop code, Novell waiving the rights, and testimony from various people that IBM is bound by contract such that any code that touches SCO code is still controlled by SCO.

Re:No Copyright Code in Linux

[jimicus]

IBM is bound by contract such that any code that touches SCO code is still controlled by SCO.

IANAL, but why would IBM sign something like that? Surely the net result is that IBM get to take an existing code base, turn it into whatever IBM want and SCO can have all IBMs work for no extra charge. What's in it for IBM?

Re:No Copyright Code in Linux

[RichMan]

> IBM is bound by contract such that any code that touches SCO code is still controlled by SCO.

Sorry, I worded the last sentence badly. This is SCO's position that the contract somehow attached SCO rights to IBM code, despite the contract clearly stating, "Code developed by IBM belongs to IBM" and everyone who signed the contract stating that as the intention of the contract.

SCO was originally trying to blow "derivative copyright" smoke up that claim but that is clearly not supported by copyright law. SCO is now attempting to modify their claim against IBM to support their new contract theory.

Re:No Copyright Code in Linux

[jbolden]

They never did. SCO originally claimed this as part of their copyright case where AIX was a derived work of Sys V and SCO had all rights to Sys V on x86 (a claim with 0 support BTW). Currently SCO is going to have to show:

SCO -> Monterey -> AIX -> Linux
unless the court agrees with SCO's claim in which case:

Monterey -> AIX -> Linux will be enough or maybe even
AIX -> Linux will be enough.

The problem is of course that SCOs legal theory is insane but the court isn't forcing a reasonable legal theory prior to allowing examination of evidence.

Re:No Copyright Code in Linux

[sparkz]

why would IBM sign something like that?

Because UNIX was (is) proprietary code, and, while everyone was sharing it pretty freely, the lawyers had their hands in the pot. Everybody understood that it was a gentleman's agreement, and one gets the impression that nobody looked too closely at the small print, because everyone was in the same bubble of mutual dependancy, we're sharing it all anyway, and even if we don't, then there's BSD over there with the same stuff "for free" so the documentation is just a bit of paperwork.
We won't go around publishing the lot for free in an ACM newsletter, but we all know that all UNIX licensees have access to the stuff anyway.
That seems to be the spirit in which the original licenses were signed; When Sun changed from BSD to SysV, there was a lot of fuss from customers, but nobody seemed to worry about "but now we're beholden to AT&T/USL" - it wasn't an issue.
Everybody was in the same clique.
Now, new-SCO seem to be re-interpreting old documents, but rather too late, IMNSVHO. Particularly now that everything (SysV, Linux, even Windows), has tons of BSD code in it, the original license is a historic document, at best. The more obscure parts, like "what you derive, you give back (which is rather GPL-ish, if you think about it, but without the "give back to everyone" aspect), have been declared void by previous holders of the license (USL/Novell), but SCO are trying to revive that aspect of it. Good luck, SCO. The world is against you.

Not to worry ...

[awacs]

... as an attorney, I can predict the ultimate outcome: IBM will lawyer SCO to death. He who has the most resources wins. IBM beat the Department of Justice into submission; what chance does little SCO have? While in *this* case, it leads to a welcome result, It's always very disturbing when it happens. What if IBM decides, say, not to be so patent-friendly? And turns on, oh, Red Hat? Or somebody else? It's always nice to have the 800-lb gorrila in your corner. :-)

Ah, a new profit scheme

[Mustang Matt]

1. Sue someone for using your code.
2. Have the judge force them to turn their proprietary code over to you.
3. Copy their code into your programs.
4. PROFIT!

Re:Ah, a new profit scheme

[fergj]

Of course, it's always possible to cheat, but it is SCO's outside lawyers who get to see the code, and under a previous order, SCO's officers, management, and technicel staff are forbidden access. Based upon SCO's earlier estimates, the lawyers will have to hire 25,000 man-years worth of software experts to make the comparisons. What a boon that will be, almost as good as the Y2K gold rush!

Re:Ah, a new profit scheme

[FudgePackinJesus]

What a boon that will be, almost as good as the Y2K gold rush!

Yeah, until SCOX runs out of cash and then proclaims the whole fiasco as the big mean ol' software giant beating up the little guy.

Re:Ah, a new profit scheme

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds so scary it might actually work!!!

Re:Ah, a new profit scheme

[Anonymous Coward]

I could do it cheaper. All you need is a few machines running grep.

Transcript of the order

[kuwan]

You can find a transcript of the order here on IP-Wars.net. Groklaw has an article about the ruling.

I think the order is outrageous personally. IBM's being ordered to produce all versions of AIX and Dynix along with notes, whitepapers, and all that fun stuff. This is going to be a mountain of code and documents considering that AIX is 20 years old.

--
Join the Pyramid - Free Mini Mac

Re:Transcript of the order

[new death barbie]

Hmmmm... I wonder how many 8-inch floppies that would be?

Re:Transcript of the order

[tomhudson]

Hmmmm... I wonder how many 8-inch floppies that would be?

~300,000 12" single-sided single-density 35 track 160k floppies. Say around 18 20' containers.

Plus one old system box to read them.

Just transferring the data from the floppies to a new box will take 2 years at 24 hrs/day, 7 days/week, provided the drive doesn't break.

The neverending story

[cyberfunk2]

Why do these judges just prolong this sort of pain, SCO hasnt found anything and they wont BE finding anything.

I suppose it's just one last ride for the stock ( up nearly a dollar ( more than 25% of it's value) today) so those guys can sell off their shares before they get delisted.

Anyone keeping track of their legal fund ? When does it run out ? We seriously need some sort of online counter to keep track out how many days worth of operating expenses those people have left so we can slowly watch their demise.

I suppose all good things take patience, right?

Re:The neverending story

[Dav3K]

You can't expect SCO to hang themselves unless you give them enough rope.

Or to put it another way, let them do discovery now if it prohibits an appeal later.

Re:The neverending story

[cyberfunk2]

Yea, I suppose.

There's an old saying in poker... Know when to fold.

Darl, it's time to put those cards on the table.
Does anyone else see him being the next corporate CEO being sued for fraud ?

Re:The neverending story

[Dav3K]

Darl's in this for the long haul. What motivation would he have to pull out now? The damage to SCO has already been done - pulling out now would only admit defeat and probably cause the company to fold it's doors. Nah, he signed on to do this at the expense of his company - he'll see it through, collect his severance and then get hired on by another Canopy company later.

Re:The neverending story

[MightyMartian]

Let's not forget the other reason Darl's hanging on. Two words: shareholder lawsuits

If he yanks out now, not only will SCO go down in flames, but the shareholders will have epileptic seizures and go to court to puni$h him. SCO has no choice. The scheme to extort some money out of IBM went horribly awry, but with the potential of lawsuits (not to mention the likelihood that the SEC would start looking in their direction) they have to ride this horse until the bitter end.

a little bit of light reading

[noisymime]

so what exactly does SCO do when IBM produces a single hard copy of those 2 billion lines of code? That's got to be around 40 million pages!

Re:a little bit of light reading

[albn]

That's why there are CD's and DVDs. They will also spend untold months poring over the code to see what was infringed and what was not...

Re:a little bit of light reading

[noisymime]

the first 900 million lines handed over by IBM were in hardcopy :)

Re:a little bit of light reading

[albn]

Holy moly. That's an entire forest wasted, hehe. What did they use to transport it, a tractor trailer?

Re:a little bit of light reading

[noisymime]

who knows, thats SCO's problem. I can just imagine IBM dumping it on SCO's doorstep, ringing the doorbell then bolting. Still I'd be a bastard too if it was my choice.

Re:a little bit of light reading

[Anonymous Coward]

let's see, 900,000,000 lines, 40 to a page, 500 pages per pack, that's 45,000 packs of A4 paper, say 1 kilo per pack, that's a nifty 45 tons of paper.

I seem to remember a 40' container payload is about 24,000 kilos, so that makes two 40' units.

so no, they did not need a tractor trailer.

They needed two

Victory?

[Lord Kano]

Isn't all of the linux kernel code already available?

LK

Mandatory Drug Testing

[PacketScan]

Ok i think we need to get this judge a drug test.. In the past two years Sco's fishing expedition has yeilded not one, 100% solid claim. And with another 1.1 billion lines of sco will have all of ibm's code.
This gives new meaning to "ALL your Code Belong To us" They have essentail "legally" aquired IBM's source code so in turn unless ibm has an inkling that sco is infringling on it's code, they can no steal from ibm. I guess they Hooked a big one!

Re:Mandatory Drug Testing

[Anonymous Coward]

The Judge needs drug testing because she contradicts herself.

When she ordered that IBM give up the source code to the releases, she ordered:

"Following the production, SCO is to provide additional memoranda to this Court indicating if and how these files support its position and how they are relevant. The memorandum is to include with specificity, and to the extent possible, identification of additional files SCO requests and the reasons for such requests. The court will then consider ordering IBM to produce more code from AIX and Dynix."

SCO never did anything other than scream "IBM WON"T GIVE US MORE CODE THAN YOU ORDERED" in legalese. They never gave specific reasons for needing the intermediate Dynix and AIX code, they just screamed 'it must be in there somewhere!!'

And now she brings back a ruling that basically gives the whiner what the whiner wants.

I'm pissed, I was expecting a judicial bitch-slap along the lines of 'Hey, you never did what I, the JUDGE, told you to do!'

Reporter got it wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM has to turn over every revision of their AIX and Dynx code, not their Linux code. SCO has yet to show how they're related, but they obviously fooled the judge.

Re:Reporter got it wrong

[jimicus]

IBM has to turn over every revision of their AIX and Dynx code,

That should keep SCO going for a few hours.

Can we stick to "source code"

[GillBates0]

and not use laymen terms like "program codes" which normal media outlets resort to, to dumb down the discussion atleast on /.?

Thank you.

Re:Can we stick to "source code"

[Stevyn]

01001101010011110100010000100000010101010101000000 100001

Guilty until...

[Nom du Keyboard]

Okay, IBM. These fine folks at SCO, with no evidence to back them up, claim you're guilty.

Now prove that you're not, and give them your trade secrets in the process.

Re:Guilty until...

[ifwm]

"Now prove that you're not, and give them your trade secrets in the process"

1. This is a civil case. Guilt and innocence have nothing to do with civil cases.

2. SCO has no access. SCO's lawyers (and the people they hire) have access, but a previous decision prohibits anyone from SCO getting a look.

Of course now others will rant about SCO's lawyers sneaking stuff to SCO, but that's nothing but conspiratorial horseshit.

I'm a bit out of touch

[afstanton]

but has SCO been ordered to turn over all of it's source code to the court yet? If not, why not?

10 bucks says

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO's fishing for all of IBM's code. Then they merge it into their own code, and then say "THERE IT IS! ALL THEIR CODE IS REALLY OURS."

Banky Edwards

[KlomDark]

Anybody else hear the voice of Banky Edwards (Jason Lee) in Mallrats/Chasing Amy saying "Oh come ON!!???"

Re:Banky Edwards

[ngc5194]

As a point of pedantry, the character Jason Lee played in Mallrats was Brody Bruce. And, of course, he played both characters in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.

Re:Banky Edwards

[KlomDark]

Oops, you're right. Banky is from Chasing Amy. :)

Could this strategy be reused?

[digitalgimpus]

Could someone claim that Microsoft illegially used their code... and have a court require Microsoft to reveal the code?

Hmm... any takers?

This could be fun. Lets Open Source Windows!

Re:Could this strategy be reused?

[Anonymous Coward]

The source is already out:

void win() {

while(!power_off) {

do_stuff();

do_more_stuff();

do_blue_screen();

}

}

Re:Could this strategy be reused?

[Sgt_Jake]

This could be fun. Lets Open Source Windows! ...

Dear God, why would anyone want that? (Unless maybe we want to know how NOT to write a program...)

The Chinaman is not the issue, Darl!

[WormholeFiend]

Why would SCO need to analyse IBM's code, if the reason for the lawsuit is in the first place because SCO knows IBM infringed on SCO's code?

I mean, in order to know there is infringement, you'd have to have already figured out what part of the code was "stolen", right?

Re:The Chinaman is not the issue, Darl!

[arkanes]

The argument is something like this: SCO has inherited certain control rights over UNIX code. AIX and Dynix are based on UNIX. We think that IBM donated parts of AIX and Dynix to Linux that they shouldn't have. But because we don't know whats in AIX and Dynix, we need to get the source for all of those to compare to Linux and see what matches. Furthermore, because we already did this and nothing matched, we need to get all the intermediate versions of AIX/Dynix, because some programmer might have written something that never actually was released, and THAT then got copied into Linux.

Yes, it sounds ridiculous. And note that for it to make even the semblance of sense you have to totally ignore all the public claims SCO has made about knowing that there's copied code.

Re:The Chinaman is not the issue, Darl!

[mark-t]

SCO's claim that they "know" there is copied code is derived from the extaordinarily arrogant premise that there's "no possible way that a disorganized bunch of hackers developing code in their spare time could produce anything resembling an enterprise class operating system without somehow deriving from code that SCO controls" (paraphrased, but essentially that's what they said).

Re:The Chinaman is not the issue, Darl!

[andymac]

This is part of "discovery", whereby the plaintiff and defendants are required to share information which helps to define the scope of the infringement.. i.e.: just how much code is SCO imagining IBM has released against the terms their license agreement? If you say 1KLOC then you could quantify that as X dollars damage. If it's 100 MLOC, then you'd want to sue for more money, right?

Def'n: "Discovery -- The pretrial process by which one party discovers the evidence that will be relied upon at trial by the opposing party."

Ref: http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/publicInfo/l egalTerms/legalTerms.asp

Re:The Chinaman is not the issue, Darl!

[Anonymous Coward]

this thread up to topmost parent is the most objective and precise SCO vs. IBM thread I ever read. somebody print this and mail to the court, please.

Neverending story?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would end if people would just drop the damn subject. Summary of all SCO-related articles ever published so far: SCO sucks. Next story please?

big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think SCO stands a chance - they haven't even come out with an exact list of their dubious claims or any of the "stolen" code. If the judge has any brains he will order a detailed examination of the plaintiff's claims first. In what ever way this ends it will not change a thing for Linux and all of us.

Some Encouragement for SCO (and something bizarre)

[judmarc]

The magistrate (who is presiding over pre-trial discovery, not the trial, where a judge will be in charge) noted that the contract between SCO and IBM may well give SCO more rights to the code than copyright law does. Thus IBM might be liable to SCO for putting code in Linux that doesn't violate any copyright SCO may have. IOW, Linux would be OK, IBM would not.

Another theory advanced by SCO that the magistrate did not dismiss out of hand is the possibility that internal IBM AIX and Dynix code changes may show a path between SCO code and Linux. IBM has been contending that if a bare comparison between Linux and SCO code shows no obvious copying, anything IBM did internally is irrelevant.

The bizarre bit is a footnote paying tribute to New York Giants football player Mel Hein that (to mix sports metaphors) comes from way out in left field. It's also ungrammatical ("He played 15 seasons going 60 minutes a game without nearly any rest"), which I'm definitely not accustomed to seeing in Federal court orders.

Dual edged sword

[Dark Paladin]

For SCO, this is both a good thing and a bad thing.

The good news is that maybe, perhaps, they'll be able to find something somewhere in a line of code and go "ah-ha! We've caught you!"

There's just one problem: if there was something to catch, SCO would have used it by now.

Is the code in Linux? So far, SCO's been unable to show any proof, and what "proof" they've tried to bring in (like "malloc.c" code) has been proven so wrong that they've given up trying to convince the public.

Is it in AIX (other than what IBM paid for)? Again, so far SCO's been unable to find anything to prove their case.

So I'd say that the odds of them finding something is pretty low. And even if they find a case of a programmer going "Hey, here's this code from AIX I can put into Linux", you'll see a note right afterwards saying "No, that's not our code - and now that you're tainted, you can't work on Linux." Or some other legal dealie that IBM's dreamed up. (My evidence? Remember: SCO has been unable to prove any of their code is in Linux without their consent, so evidently it never made it in.)

So what's the downside of this ruling? Basically, the Magistrate of this case (this judge, as Groklaw mentions, is not the ruling just, just a procedural judge or something like that) is giving SCO more rope to hang itself with. SCO has been saying "We could prove our case if only those nasty old lying IBM guys would give us what we want."

So now the Magistrate is saying "OK, I call your bluff. IBM, turn over the stuff and let's see what we find out."

If SCO can't find "evidence", then they're pretty much out of appeals (though I'm sure they'll think of something.) But even so, this is more money they're spending, and every day the case drags on without a hope of settlement is another day they pay their lawyers more. And sooner or later, Mr. Boies is going to have to start weighing the odds of paying for the case out of his own pocket versus the potential reward.

For now, I'll keep the SCO case far on my back burner. Come back in another six months or so before anything "interesting" happens.

Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.

As far as I can tell...

[agraupe]

The code ordered to be handed over was AIX, not Linux. I really don't give a crap whether SCO wins on this, because I don't use it, and, since it is commerical and closed-source, if it has copied code, IBM should be punished for it.

Re:As far as I can tell...

[andycat]

SCO's argument is far more bizarre than that. They claim that since AIX and Dynix might have touched UNIX code once upon a time, all code ever written for AIX and Dynix since then must be covered by the contract terms of IBM's license for UNIX. Those terms talk about "methods and concepts" as protected entities. IBM used some of those allegedly protected methods and concepts when, say, they moved JFS over to OS/2, then implemented the Linux version of JFS using that as a reference. It's not about AIX. They're trying to argue that Linux inherited from OS/2 inherited from AIX touched UNIX, so (of course) they own the things in Linux.

Their theory of derived works is totally at right angles to reality. That isn't the way it works. However, Judge Wells is not permitted to smack them down. That falls to Judge Kimball (the trial judge) and, perhaps, a jury.

This is an annoying delay but really isn't going to change the outcome of the case.

Re:As far as I can tell...

[the big v]

But IBM has rights to put any and all of that code into AIX. They paid SCO (or its predecessors) for that.

However, SCO are trying to show that code from AIX was copied into linux, and they want to claim that even if IBM wrote it, because they put it into AIX first, SCO owns it. Something like that...

Re:As far as I can tell...

[WillerZ]

The JFS which is currently in OS/2, AIX and Linux was an OS/2 feature first. It was ported to AIX from OS/2. It was subsequently ported from OS/2 to Linux. It's not even that it went AIX->OS/2->Linux.

Phil

Re:As far as I can tell...

[xgamer04]

It's more bizarre than the historic episcopate :P

Here's What I Would Do...

[zoomba]

... SCO requests all sorts of code to go digging through. If I were IBM, I'd hand them every single line of code they've ever developed. Here you go, have fun, we'll see you in a few years when you've sorted it all out.

Considering SCO doesn't really seem to be doing much aside from churning out lawsuits, they'll blow through what remains of their cash reserves before they actually get to the end of all the code.

Of course they'd probably come back and cry foul saying they couldn't be expected to have the resources to analyze that much information and that the court should order IBM to do the analysis itself. This of course leaves the door open to appeals when IBM finds nothing

"Of course they wouldn't find it! They're the ones looking for it! What do you mean we requested they do the work? Oh, hey! What's that shiney thing over there?" *runs out the door*

Re:Here's What I Would Do...

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't. Their code is considered an asset, and if they just give it away then it's like them saying their asset had no value, then they couldn't sue people who stole their code and get damages.

Redefining victory

[HangingChad]

The plantiff gets another delay and that's counted as a victory? This is the plantiff we're talking about here, the one that's supposed to have a case when the start. And it's the plantiff asking for delay after delay. This is messed up.

If the Bushies want to do something about abusive litigation why don't they start with this case?

Re:Can somebody please tell me what does this mean

[essreenim]

No, I think
This has vast implications..not. Probably not much
The tooth fairy is their last hope.

So

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO finally found a sympathetic judge that they can buy. Anyone know how much SCO stock this judge owns?

Re:So

[jimbro2k]

SCO is too cheap to buy a judge.
What little money they have left is better spent on "incentives" to the SCO executives.
..And legal fees.

Google Bombs Away

[BurritoWarrior]

I think it's time to add to litigious bastards with one for moronic judges.

C'mon, IBM already gave them nearly ONE BEEEELYON lines of code. How could you order more fishing for SCO?

#inlude

[Anonymous Coward]

Might explain why no one wants their software

Re:#inlude

[mattyrobinson69]

it was a typo, and the header file was identified by slashcode as a html tag. i should probably use preview.

i would have replied to myself, but due to /. being anal about posting twice in two minutes, i thought sod it - people will understand what i mean.

i meant #include (stdlib)

im not sure if stdlib is correct for c, ive never ever written anything in c.

Re:#inlude

[Anonymous Coward]

im not sure if stdlib is correct for c, ive never ever written anything in c

Or proper English, apparently. There are these things things called "capital" letters ...

Re:#inlude

[mattyrobinson69]

oooh! who's a grammer nazi.

I bet you wear womens underwear, dont you?

Re:#inlude

[Anonymous Coward]

oooh! who's a grammer nazi.

You're proud of and defiant about your illiteracy, aren't you? That speaks for itself.

BTW, to be correct, your flame should have had "oooh!" "who's" and "nazi" capitalized, "grammer" is spelled "grammar," and a quesion ends with a question mark, not a period. That's five serious errors in a sentence of five words. Not bad, fuckwit. You did much better in your fetish question, though, probably because you pay more attention to things that fascinate you.

Re:#inlude

[mattyrobinson69]

i dont feel its necessary to dot my i's and cross my t's on slashdot.

You don't..

[Kjella]

..but IBM (you know, the one on trial?) has all the code they licenced from SCO. I'm sure they've did lots of comparisons and know SCO is smoking crack. I'm sure they'll let us, the courts and the world know in due time.

Kjella

Re:You don't..

[PMuse]

Roger that. Parent insightful. Grandparent not so much.

/S/ o /C/ lose to /O/ pen

[Doc Ruby]

Isn't SCO just asking for IBM to Open the Source for SCO to chew on? If all the OS source were Open Source, this process would be a 1-day grep affair.

Another huge victory for MSFT

[walterbyrd]

This is the best news that scox's primary benefactor could hope for.

This ruling will insure endless delays. Which means the legal cloud over linux will remain for years to come. All the while "independant" tech analysts like Yankee Group will be cranking out articles about the overwhelming legal risks inherent in F/OSS.

The scox-scam is the one of the best investments msft has ever made. $50MM for all that FUD is one hullva bargin.

Re:Another huge victory for MSFT

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you misspelled "Yank and Grope"

Gone and almost forgotten

[gilesjuk]

This is the first mention of SCO I've seen this year, I guess the whole thing is approaching failure for SCO. The fact that it's not seen as newsworthy for the most part demonstrates this.

Bye bye SCO is all I can say, they could have made a packet selling a decent enterprise Linux but they preferred the easy route to raising share price.

just wait?

[jimbro2k]

How long do we wait? Till hell freezes over? or just until the heat death of the multiverse?

In related penguin news

[AndroidCat]

That ice-berg/glacier collision has also slowed down which is bad news for some penguins.

The ice blockage also threatens penguin breeding colonies, with tens of thousands of Adele penguin chicks facing starvation as parent birds are forced to trudge up to 110 miles to open sea to gather food. [snip]

"These things can linger for 20 years," he said.

Got that right! (Icebergs or SCO.)

Re:Can somebody please tell me what does this mean

[CmdrGravy]

No, it means that they have gained a little extra delay.

IBM has lost nothing except a little time and effort producing this extra code for them.

Given that they already all the code for the current versions of AIX and don't seem to have found anything in that it's not too likely they find anything in all the code which didn't make it into AIX.

Even if they do find what they consider to be illegal code they will still have to prove that the contract does not allow IBM to use work it has created it's self however it likes.

SCO is going to lose, it's just a matter of time.

This isn't a plus for SCO

[tod_miller]

I sometimes wonder if everyone else lives in a world where 1 is 0 and up is down.

SCO wants to see more, because they are clutching at straws, yes you can say "IBM ordered to" but this is probably the judge giving SCO one last shot before he brings our the red hot castrating irons.

It is wrong to setup a voluntary "I pledge to rape an SCO lawyer if they win" campaign? Then we can screw them instead of them screwing everyone else.

Something to meditate on as you play gta:sa

I'm waiting for ...

[Alarion]

SCO to find a line something like this

for (i = 0; i < max_num; i++) {

OMG SEE?! IBM stole a line of code!

(granted, the code is probably all C not C++, but you heard what I meant!)

Re:I'm waiting for ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonder if somewhere in there, they'd throw in "gorilla.bas" and "nibbles.bas" just for fun.

Re:I'm waiting for ...

[Changa_MC]

The line you gave, is in C. I'm trying not to be an utter jerk, because I know no-one learns C anymore... Just because it works in C++, does not mean it is C++. All C code should work under C++.

To call it C++, it needs to not work under C, something like:

1. for (int i = 0; i < max_num; i++) {

Re:I'm waiting for ...

[woah]

for (i = 0; i < max_num; i++) {

(granted, the code is probably all C not C++, but you heard what I meant!)

How exactly is that line of code C++ and not C.

Re:I'm waiting for ...

[rbarreira]

All C code should work under C++

Nope

Re:I'm waiting for ...

[Alarion]

Being that I haven't ever coded in C (only C++) and that I haven't even touched that in probably 4 years, I thought I recalled one of my books saying that they added the var++ syntax in C++ but it wasn't available in C.

I suppose I remember incorrectly!

Re:Some Encouragement for SCO (and something bizar

[Anonymous Coward]

The contract isn't between SCO and IBM. It's between AT+T and IBM, and everyone at AT+T gave a deposition that says IBM gets to keep it's own code. That's in addition to the side letter AT+T sent to IBM that says IBM keeps it's own code, and the @echo newsletter that says the exact same thing.

As for SCO's theory of copyright, well, SCO would have to own the copyright first (it doesn't, Novell does). Then, they'd have to find their so-called path, which doesn't exist. If it did, they'd have found it in the 272 versions of AIX that IBM already handed over, and would have to have disclosed it by now. Should they manage to conjure one up with their illegal fishing expedition, they'd still have to slip that completely unsupported by case law copyright theory of theirs past Judge Kimball, which isn't likely.

If I were IBM, I'd file a motion to kick Darl in the nuts. Chances are this judge would grant it just to avoid the inevitable "I didn't get to kick Darl in the nuts, therefore the trial is invalid" appeal. Honestly, how much anal probing does SCO get to do before the judge can decide that their case is composed completely of crap?

your

[Anonymous Coward]

None of the possessive pronouns use an apostrophe: my mine, our ours, her hers, his, their theirs, your yours, whose. (Agreed on the sentiment, though.)

This'll Make the Lawyers Happy

[canfirman]

And in some back room, SCO's lawyers are rolling in the dough. "Another delay - sure..." Hey, as long as SCO pays the bills, the lawyers will do just about anything.

Orgazmo reference...

[ghost1911]

Where are these people from, Mars? Nope... Utah.

Re:Orgazmo reference...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are these people from, Mars? Nope... Utah.

But unlike Utah, Mars was made habitable.

That's arbitration

[siskbc]

IANAL, far from, actually, but shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't SCO be releasing code to an independent party to determine if its copyright has been breeched? Or will they keep requesting more code and fish around for something they can 'try to claim' is a copyright violation?

Well, no, since that's not how the court system works. What you've described is called arbitration, and can be used if both sides are amenable.

Wouldn't it be nice...

[eno2001]

...if people used the legal system to resolve actual problems instead of as an obstacle course? The SCO suit seems to be calculated to try and smear Linux rather than solve any real issues. The fact that SCO won't reveal what they claim to have as "proof" stands out in my mind as nothing but pure dishonesty.

Chinaman? How about nigger? Or spic?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of plenty of movie quotes with the other ones.

They're about the same. Chinaman is offensive.

What happened

[mcc]

To IBM's summary judgment requests from a month or two ago?

Still being processed? Delayed pending SCO's response to its new discovery?

Uhh, WHAT code?

[gosand]

Has SCO been ordered to show any code of theirs that they claim has been infringed upon?

Does SCO have any code to show?

Great idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sue your competitors, claiming they copied YOUR code. Then a judge orders your competitor to hand over THEIR code to you. I guess next Microsoft will sue Apple and get their code, Oracle will sue BEA, and so on. Eventually everyone will have everyone elses code.

Lawyers ALWAYS use "codes"

[kt0157]

When I sold my company a couple of years back the buyer's lawyers were always yacking on about "source codes". I'm sure they thought that there was some kind of Dr. Evil in a lab somewhere where white-coated scientists were working on some kind of weapon with secret launch codes. And everyone else wore orange jumpsuits with helmets sprayed silver.

What is amazing is that we let these morons run the world. What we should do is round them up, put them in a secret base made out of a hollowed-out extinct volcano and then bomb the bastards. Or zap them with a space-borne laser made from diamonds.

Re:Mormons + the FBI = 2 unscrupulous groups

[Anonymous Coward]

At least with the FBI there's a chance they're just your stereotypical incompetent government boob, incompetent but honest. Doing business with Mormons is just asking to get screwed.

Glimmer of what? hope?

[Anonymous Coward]

How in the hell do you call this a glimmer of hope? They get some more discovery? the reason they are so desperate for more is because they have found nothing to support their claim yet. and this judge is only a magistrate that is trying to get everything open and on the table for the proper judge. So, I'm not sure what part of this is either a "partial victory" or a "glimmer of hope". This is all a part of exactly the same discovery process that has been going on all along. Please stop being such a lap-dog of spin.

Re:Glimmer of what? hope?

[walterbyrd]

---
the reason they are so desperate for more is because they have found nothing to support their claim yet.
---

They aren't looking, never have. This is all discovery for the sake of delay.

Scox doesn't expect to win the case. In fact scox doesn't expect the case to even go to trial.

You have to understand how the scam works.

Does this count?

[Q-Hack!]

oops...

Re:Does this count?

[Q-Hack!]

Wow, I can't even post in the correct area...

A thousand monkeys...

[SunFan]

Why doesn't IBM invoke a "thousand monkeys with typewriters" program to feed SCO all the code they could ever hope for. It is clear by now that SCO doesn't care about the lawsuit beyond what it takes to feed their code fetish. I hear Darl really gets off on unions in C..."I can put into you what I want, baby! Oh, yeah!"

Isn't this already covered under the GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't that code be out there already???

Dynix is BSD based but AIX is Mach

[gelfling]

Dynix comes from Sequent computers which was purchased by IBM in 1996. Dynix forked from BSD around 1984. AFAIK IBM killed all Sequent and NUMA-Q 3 years ago. But AIX is Mach based with a bunch of features from different BSDs thrown in over the years.

And 2 BILLION lines of code? Who the hell are these people? Dr. Evil?

Re:Some Encouragement for SCO (and something bizar

[judmarc]

The contract isn't between SCO and IBM. It's between AT+T and IBM

Well, to be a bit more accurate, the original contract was between AT&T and IBM, and SCO obtained rights under that contract from AT&T (precisely what rights are one of the numerous subjects of dispute in the lawsuit).

The depositions from AT&T people will likely be considered by the judge in determining the meaning of the relevant contract provisions, barring the unlikely event that the judge finds the contractual wording is so plain on its face that no additional evidence is needed regarding interpretation.

Re:This is a *huge* plus SCO

[walterbyrd]

- delays ruling on lanham act violations.

- allows scox's primary benefactor to keep a legal cloud over linux.

- Scox's CEO keeps getting $100K/month.

- sent scox already insanely high stock price up 25%.

- keeps scox's "linux lottery" promise alive for longer.

Re:Some Encouragement for SCO (and something bizar

[_Sprocket_]

Well, to be a bit more accurate, the original contract was between AT&T and IBM, and SCO obtained rights under that contract from AT&T (precisely what rights are one of the numerous subjects of dispute in the lawsuit).

Didn't any rights transfered from AT&T go to Novell? Then Novell made arangements whith SCO concerning new business / customers (which is where the debate over exactly what rights were transfered to SCO). Caldera (who soon afterwards renamed themselves The SCO Group) purchased a majority of what was SCO, leaving what was left to become it's own entity under the Tarentella name.

Please correct me if I've made a mistake. But otherwise, it seems that there are quit a few steps between AT&T and the SCO involved in court.

They are not "fishing"

[walterbyrd]

They are not even looking. They never have. This case will never go to trial, that's not the idea.

Scox execs are making $100K a month. Scox's stock price is *way* up. There is a legal cloud over linux. That is what the case is about.

The case will either be completly changed (scox already did this once) and/or the case will be dismissed before it goes to trial - scox does this all the time - look at the DCX case.

What are they going to do with this?

[wrook]

What I don't understand is what they are going to do with this. Does SCO have and programmers left? Or any money to pay contractors? Who is going to do the analysis?

Kind of like weapons of mass destruction...

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of Bush's claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There is nothing to find, but there is still something to gain. SCO has succeeded in spreading FUD for M$ and itself, much like Bush did to get into Iraq.

They'll need a truck anyway

[pknoll]

Even at standard fonts. The article states "approximately 2 billion lines of code".

Do the math.

(Not that I don't appreciate your humour).

If SCO even owns UNIX

[travisco_nabisco]

I find it odd that SCO can demand all this code and continue with this law suite against IBM, while the Novell case still isn't finished. It would be really embarassing, if after all the money they have spent, it was shown that they never fully owned UNIX. Just think of the law suites SCO would have to face if Novell showed that they still owned the UNIX copywrites, especially with IBM's backing for Novell.

Re:Some Encouragement for SCO (and something bizar

[judmarc]

You're correct. I just wanted to keep things very simple. Putting it yet another way: SCO is at the end of a chain that begins with AT&T.

The Future:

[Mr_Dictionary]

This will end, either because SCO runs out of money, or IBM wins the case outright. Then, IBM sues SCO for what remains of their assets. Given the amount of money IBM has spent already, there is no way that SCO will be able to pay the damages that will be awarded to IBM.

Rather then forcing SCO into bankruptcy,IBM purchases SCO for pennies on the dollar. IBM now owns all licenses for unix, which given IBM's current stance means that unix is now effectively open source. The software karma is now balanced.

Ag shame....

[coogan]

Is this going to be another year of "nothing" Darl?

kernel.org?

[powermung]

Forgive my ignorance, but can someone tell me what exactly SCO wants that they can't get from kernel.org?

11 million dollar victory

[janneH]

As of 2.30 pm the stock was at about $4.20 - up from $3.53 the previous day. That is an 11 million dollar increase in market cap - which effectively means the market thinks the ruling is worth 11 million to SCO. I can't say that I see what about the ruling is worth quite that much. Maybe the way to think about it is that this is a 3 billion dollar lottery - and the price of the ticket just went from 62 million to 73 million.

As much as I hate to admit it..

[schon]

... it is a victory for SCO, because it's

A) irrelevant to the case
B) something they asked for
C) onerous for IBM to produce, and
D) something IBM didn't want to give them (because it's irrelevant to the case, as well as onerous to produce.)

Yes, we all know that SCO is going to use this as a delay. First, it will take IBM a long time to produce it, and as soon as IBM hands it over, SCO's gonna request *more* time, because it's too much for them go through in the remaining discovery period.

The way I read this

[Pop69]

It's all in the rote objection quote.

"Once again by requiring this, the court seeks to circumvent the rote objection by SCO alleging that they did not get enough information."

It's to stop SCO from whining that they haven't seen enough of the code to prove it's baseless allegations. I see this as less of a victory for SCO and more of a sign that judicial patience for these fishing trips is wearing thin.

Still no hope for SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hardly call forcing IBM to turn over more code cause to think SCO has anymore of a chance then they did before. They still have to contend with Novell's filing that included the minutes of a meeting between them (Novell) and Santa Cruz Operations (now SCO) that spells out clearly that Novell retained most, if not all, the copyrights etc associated with Unix (as reported here on /.). You can still find the transcipt of it on Groklaw.

Re:Some Encouragement for SCO (and something bizar

[_Sprocket_]

You're correct. I just wanted to keep things very simple. Putting it yet another way: SCO is at the end of a chain that begins with AT&T.

OK. Fair enough. But I would suggest that trying to simply the chain glosses over some very important details. And its those details that suggest that SCO doesn't have the rights they're claiming to have. Put another way, your simplification may imply a clear-cut case that isn't actually so clear-cut.

I remember an interview last year where Darl McBride was asked about Novell's claims. Darl ended up asserting that Caldera (SCO Group) had purchased what they thought they purchased - after all, they're not idiots. I'm sure Jack thought the same thing about his bag of magic beans. But the documentation presented by Novell seems to throw considerable question as to what exactly SCO's holdings are. As such, I'm not expecting SCO's portfolio to be leading to the fell of any giants and associated acquisition a fortune.

Court ruling is a plus for SCO vs. IBM ??

[lbmouse]

I posed this question to the reporter that wrote the article and this is all I got back in reply:

I don't write the headlines.
We'll leave it at that . . .
Bob Mims
The Salt Lake Tribune
voice: 801-257-8720
fax: 801-257-8525
e-mail: bmims@sltrib.com

In other news...

[amichalo]

SCO is ordered to show more ass to the Linux Market Share

Whatever Happened to the Dismissal Motion?

[endeavour31]

Around 6 months ago, IBM filed their motion for summary judgement which all /.'rs hailed as the end of the lawsuit. I guess it was not granted as this continues....

I am tired of the surmise. Everybody has an opinion but nobody knows the facts. *sigh* Guess I am just being optimistic these days. Until there is some sort of final determination in this case I see more wishful thinking on these forums than illumination.

And in the event SCO prevails... I cannot wait to see the postings on how the legal system sucks since SCO clearly never had a case from the beginning - et cetera.

Lets just chill until this farce is COMPLETELY over - then dissect it all you want.

Re:Whatever Happened to the Dismissal Motion?

[walterbyrd]

I believe you are refering to the Partial Summary Judgement filed about four months ago. The judge still has that "under advisement." Nobody can figure out what is taking the judge so long.

IBM Ordered to Show More Code to SCO

[infiniphonic]

It seems strange that A company can sue for more damages than it is worth.

When will it be Sun and SGI's turn?

[totallygeek]

Solaris and Irix come from Unix too. Is IBM just the target because of their wealth or contribution to Linux or both?

Re:When will it be Sun and SGI's turn?

[walterbyrd]

IBM's contributions to linux, and possibly IBM's linux strategy (esspecially in China). Have made Sunw and Msft feel threatend. Sunw and Msft have funded and fully supported this lawsuit since the beginning.

A legal cloud is now over linux, which makes it much easier for sunw and msft to compete against linux, esspecially in the USA.

It's open source Honorable Judge Asshat

[Anonymous Coward]

Open a text editor and enjoy or get your paid off crooked ass off the bench.

Fewl.

Not in politics

[Spikeman56]

Okay so this is really offtopic...

"I mean, in order to know there is infringement, you'd have to have already figured out what part of the code was "stolen", right?"

Not according to the same logic that, you can be 100% sure there are WMDs Iraq, just have zero idea of where they are - which apparently was a good enough argument to invade Iraq, so why can't it be used to rob all those linux-source-code-copying-terrorists?

Faulty assumption

[Anonymous Coward]

You base all that reasoning on the idea that IBM signed a contract giving SCO the rights over their operating systems. They didn't. The contracts clearly state that IBM retains ownership. There are even publications by AT&T (IBM bought the code from AT&T, not SCO) explaining that the licensees retained ownership of modifications. IBM has a list of witnesses who were present at the contract negotiation to explain this too.

And despite all that the judge is still letting SCO go fishing. Ugh.

Re:Some Encouragement for SCO (and something bizar

[judmarc]

Lordy! A detail man, eh? :)

To be quite clear, I am not trying to imply anything about the strength or weakness of any part of SCO's case. If you look at previous comments I've made on SCO stories, I think you'll find they are anything but complimentary about SCO's case.

Of course, what you and I think about SCO's case "doesn't mean s**t to a tree," in the immortal words of Grace Slick.

Re:Some Encouragement for SCO (and something bizar

[_Sprocket_]

Devil's in them thar details. ;)

overgeneralizations

[Stephen Samuel]

Probably the more accurate way to put it would be to say something like:

Generally, litigation just sucks money out of pretty much everybody involved (other than the lawyers) and provides little net value to either the litigants or society.

Like any generalizations, there are exceptions, but they're just that -- exceptions. Nonetheless, the exceptions may provide enough value to society in general to make it unwise to scrap the entire system without at least designing a more productive altenative.

Re:overgeneralizations

[sfjoe]

It's actually the other way around. The vast majority of litigation serves to redress a legitimate wrong. The exceptions are the ones where a sleazy lawyer is trying to game the system. It's these exceptions that are hyped by the right-wing in an effort to remove the last protections of the weak and powerless.

Re:/S/ o /C/ lose to /O/ pen

[Doc Ruby]

I want to thank Slashdot, and the Academy, for the chance to make a triple entendre, in the Subject alone. For my next trick, I will attempt to score exactly 0 modpoints, balancing 4 points each of "Insightful" and "Troll" while Funnily Flamebaiting. Should be Interesting, though Offtopic.

"Linux operating system-related program codes"

[benedict]

Operating system-related program codes ... dammit, where have I heard that phrase before ... or something similar ... it's on the tip of my tongue.

Oh yes.

This is good news

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as JFS, EVMS, etc. are concerned, they won't find a damn thing. The AIX LVM code is so tightly integrated into AIX that the EVMS developers hardly looked at anything beyond the headers, and as for JFS, the version in Linux is actually derived from OS/2. The proof of that is in the source where they mention OS/2 support (i.e. case-insensitive filename operation), whereas AIX is maybe mentioned once or twice as a flag in a bitfield, but that's it.

Anyone who questions how tightly integrated the AIX LVM is should go check out the trace tools on any recent version.

I can't speak to the Dynix code, but I doubt the story would be much different. Operating systems components are typically not very "portable" between unrelated systems without major modifications.

First, SCOG's lawyers will have a hell of a time sifting through this code, and then when they do finally find whatever pieces were allegedly copied; the truth about how sadly mistaken they are will come out, and just maybe this horrible waste of time and money will end.

Legal cloud my a@@...

[jotaeleemeese]

Only the most incompetent companies are not using Linux at this moment in that with the excuse of "legal problems".

By know it is absolutely and completely clear that this is a scam, no company worth its salt is giving a chance in a frozen hell to SCO winning this....

got that backwards

[ahdeoz]

IBM's Linux related code has already been released to SCO, and anyone else that wants to look at it. It's beholden on SCO to show that code which they purchased the copyright to had that code copyrighted (and that they own the copyright) before it was released as part of Linux.

The Groklaw Analysis Of This Makes More Sense

[Master of Transhuman]

Basically the Magistrate denied certain aspects of SCO's requests and granted the rest mostly in order to forestall SCO's being able to further claim (baselessly so far) that they need more information to find infringing code and thus further delay the case.

IIRC the Judge actually said that in the order.

Also Groklaw reminds us that this Judge is not the trial judge and therefore can not hand SCO any sort of "win".

The Salt Lake City article is mostly hype. I wouldn't be surprised to find the author works for SCO...or his wife does...

How the game is played ...

[quarkscat]

...the US justice system is a cluster fsck.

Consider: The MSFT vs US DoJ anti-monopoly
case was dragged on by MSFT until a new AG
and different political party took power --
then MSFT (apparently) wrote their own
penalty for their misdeeds.

Consider: MSFT has been using SCO Group as a
proxy to fend off advances in market share and
"hearts and minds" from the F/OSS crowd. SCO
doesn't have a case (that they can prove), so
they plead with the courts for more time and
more code to try and "pull a rabbit out of
their hat". While I have no doubt (IANAL)
that IBM can successfully and conclusively
fight SCO Group's legal gambits, the onus of
FUD delays wider adoption of F/OSS, which gives
MSFT more breathing room. (Any /.ers NOT see
a connection between SCO's lame attempts to
cripple F/OSS, MSFT's blatent IP threats against
GNU/linux, and the long delay in the EU's final
decision AGAINST software patents?)

The axiom that "in America, you are innocent
until proven guilty" may have been true at
some point, but not these days. The **AA now
uses the Feds (DoJ) AND the courts to go after
proported file-sharers. Risk a long, drawn out
court case that bleeds your resources dry, or
pony up to an admission of guilt in trade for
reduced charges?

The American judicial system has completely
suborned by the rich and powerful, who even
if the case they present is spurious, can evoke
submission of the innocent by dragging out their
case in court. MSFT has used this tactic on
numerous occasions in court, dragging the trial
out until the outcome is moot (eg. MSFT vs Sun).

That said, one of the states most deeply involved
in corporate rights over the peoples' rights has
been Utah (and in the guise of (R) Senator Hatch.
IMHO, a corporate whore of the worst sort. (Well,
he actually has a lot of company these days.)

Show what?

[The Cisco Kid]

Uhm.. Ordered to show them what, exactly? Pretty much every bit of Linux source code is and was GPL and available to anyone that wanted it. Anything that IBM hasnt made public, isn't part of Linux.

Re:Now's not the time to buy.

[6031769]

At $3 a share (as during last year) the capitalisation is a mere $52 million. That means that any group with $26 million could take control of the company. So, if 260,000 open source advocates buy $100 of SCO stock, the group as a whole would have control. They could easily fire McBride, halt the legal action and refuse to sell the IPR to anyone, thus keeping it in their control.

That's probably a poor investment, financially speaking, but it might be the best $100 you ever spent.

Re:Now's the time to sell -- leninism

[pbhj]

reminds me of one of my favourite sayings (probably a quote??)

"in capitalism man exploits man, in communism it's the other way 'round"

[chuckle]

Re:Now's the time to sell -- leninism

[pbhj]

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/810.html apparently it was John Kenneth Galbraith and I got the jist of it!

my bad

[Changa_MC]

Alright, most C code should work under C++.
I still think of it as a superset, the exceptions are rare and have never affected my programs.