Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
MyBlog
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:
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
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.
"When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
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.
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.
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
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.
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.
They're really only sure in the press. In court, where facts are actually analyzed for truth, the story is a lot different...
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
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.
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
"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.
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!'
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.