Slashdot Mirror
Linux Kernel Code May Have Been in SCO UnixWare
Random BedHead Ed writes "Groklaw has some interesting new information online. In an entry today,
PJ has posted the Deposition of Erik W. Hughes (PDF), a SCO employee. Hughes' 2004 testimony reveals that the Linux Kernel Personality (LKP) of UnixWare somehow used kernel code. Exactly how it was used is not clear. UnixWare was released under a proprietary license, but the General Public License under which Linux is distributed requires derivative works to use the same license. As PJ says, it's "now apparent why SCO tried to say the GPL is unconstitutional" back in 2003."
A big up yours to whoever modded me down for stating that I've suspected stuff like this for a while from them.
You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...
Haha, who says there's no such thing as karma... It's just poetic justice that SCO gets what they deserve.
So, does that mean that code in the linux kernel now was once in UnixWare?
Or does it mean that SCO UnixWare has code that was once in the linux kernel?
It's interesting either way, of course, but c'mon guys. Precise wording is your friend.
Look out honey cause I'm usin' technology
Ain't got time to make no apologies
2004 is so last year.
Obi-Wan: This is not the code you're looking for.
GPL code in UnixWare...SCO forced to either pay damages or open source the Kernel. Something I never thought I'd see.
...in bed
Take no prisoners.
Do not negotiate.
Sue their asses.
Come on FSF!!!!!
-b
If you read the actual Groklaw article you will see it may just have been some copy of the kernel on one of their distribution disks which would be fine as far as the gpl is concerned. If they actually integrated source code from the linux kernel into their own kernel that would be very interesting and bad karma indeed for them. But that is far from certain.
AAHAHAHAHAHHA.
About time.
I've been suspecting this, without evidence of course, since the case started.
Give it up to the shrewd chess players... which SCO are not.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
I mean you can tell they've used OSS code(mainly their apps) by just using their programs. Some dude sitting at his computer probably noticed the similiarity between SCO stuff and Linux.
But the tite says 'May' so it might not have any code. Yet it probably does because you know how those proprietory people steal stuff *coughMicrosoftcough* so they can increase their audience.
Also, it seems this time it isn't "SCO says Linux contains their proprietory code.",but "SCO may have Linux code."
Fallout 3 will suck.
Now they'll be sued into oblivion, some more.
I can't see this forcing the UnixWare kernel to be relicensed under the GPL though, especially since some of the code couldn't be GPL'd even if they wanted. It'd just make them quite a bit more liable for copyright infringement than they already were. Since the offending code was supposedly removed over 2 years ago, they could easily claim the infringement was accidental and they made a best effort to remedy it, short of notifying the copyright owners.
I noticed the big 'confidential' on the first page of the pdf...
Someone care to exlpain?
"Piter, too, is dead."
The dumbest part is that they probably could've used BSD code (eg FreeBSD's Linux emulation layer) and done it legally.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
No wonder that all the SCO cases are lost
This being true, I really don't see why SCO suddenly went on the offensive against Linux. Surely they would have known scrutiny would have come their way, and these violations of their own would have been brought to light.
Unless, of course, the knowledge wasn't available at the time SCO decided to start going after Linux because they hadn't properly audited their own code base to ensure they were on the clearest possible ground internal ground before starting to attack the legitimacy of others code bases.
Business Voyeur
I've gone on record here at /. as saying that maybe we shouldn't be reading about and going nuts over every bit of news out of SCO, but this seems to take things in another direction. Rathern than Linux having SCO code in it, SCO code now has GPL'ed code in it? Doesn't that mean that besides being absolutely annoying, they've also broken the law? Oh, well in that case, let's have at it.
I wonder what Boies and company get out of this. I remember reading about Boies during the MS trials and he's a fascinating guy. The problem with finding a lawyer fascinating is that eventually they have to defend OJ or Darl McBride or some other idiot. But it seems to me that Boies went into this one where he had a choice to stay outside. Very strange.
Hell, I don't even know if Boies is still involved in any of this. I figure even if he is, they might need a different kind of lawyer for defense instead of attack. Tee-hee.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
This may make for an nice little lawsuit, but I don't see it happening. The EFF may help contributors make an attack, but SCO is a sinking ship full of rats that have eaten most of the cargo. The only good that could perhaps come would be an injunction on sales of UnixWare, which finishes off SCO's actual revenue. I don't think this could be leveraged to open up UnixWare (the rights are probably going to revert back to Novell anyhow), and if UW is poisoned goods nobody will want it anyway.
Stick a fork in it, there's nothing but steam left.
(IANAL, but I slept in a Days Inn Express.)
No penguins were harmed in the making of this post.
SCO, you make me laugh. You claim others of stealing from you, and then you steal from others. How ironic. Hypocrites.
I think they pretty much succeeded in labeling the use of Linux as "risky" (in the U.S. anyway) with untold IP issues.
I'd like to know how would anyone know (as in establish as fact) their compiled code contained GPL'd parts? It was easy to spot when those jokers claimed PearPC was something they made. But, how would anyone know in this case?
It might have been a trial balloon for Microsoft to gauge their litigation options too.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
http://mirrordot.org/stories/1e37d8ccf322d25235d4f 08d1380dbba/index.html
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Short SCOX today!
.
.
.
.
.
The following message is for the humor impaired or woefully ignorant:
(The above is a joke, those of you who have been following along in the SCO fiasco know all the details, like why you cannot short SCOX, and what would have happened when people on slashdot first started suggesting this.)
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
It would be fantastic if the source code to UnixWare was forced to be released due to this. Indeed, UnixWare was a great PC UNIX in the early to mid 1990s. But unfortunately it has stagnated since then.
A GPL'ed UnixWare would be amazing for what remains of the UnixWare community. It could be brought up to date and made useful again. It could provide some competition to Linux, the BSDs and Solaris on smaller servers.
It would be interesting, however, to see Novell's take on this.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
SCO = SO COMPLETELY OWNED!
Back in the spring when Maureen O'Gara and moved to have documents unsealed, the judge turned them down. However, he also indicated that the parties should review all sealed material to see if anything had been improperly sealed.
Since then, both IBM and SCO have been releasing court filings that were originally filed under seal.
You will note, if you read the PDF, that not all pages are available. Presumably, that is the way it was released by the courts, but that is not completely clear.
A big up yours to whoever modded me down for stating that I've suspected stuff like this for a while from them.
We'd like to give a big "Sorry" to everyone who is reading this! We ran out of mod points.
-Sco Legal Team
If I understand the way copyright law works, this would be more than enough to let anyone with a registered copyright on part of the Linux kernel subpoena the source for LKP to check for infringement.
Should there in fact be apparently-infringing material there, then the copyright owner could get a preliminary injunction forcing SCOX to cease and desist immediately, and very likely an order recalling all licensed copies with infringing material.
Now, there would be a bond required but otherwise PI for infringement is dang near automatic. So a company with registered Linux kernel contributions and a bit of money could pretty much finish off SCOX as a software vendor by forcing their users to convert away.
I suppose that it's a good thing for SCOX that there aren't any companies like that who would be willing to go to court with them, now, isn't it?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
How ironic does it get?
~You laugh because I'm different, I laugh because I'm insane~
SCO has two Unix products: OpenServer and UnixWare. It is important not to confuse them.
OpenServer is based on what was Xenix, and until the recently released OpenServer 6, it was considered to be an SVR3 system.
UnixWare was obtained in some form or another (under dispute at the moment) from Novell in the mid 1990s. It is an SVR4 system.
OpenServer 6 is being labelled as an SVR5 system now, and appears to be amongst the initial steps in merging/unifying the technologies found in UnixWare.
Indeed, at this point OpenServer is still a different product than UnixWare.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Not you, apparently. Now go watch Fox News and leave the rest of us with attention spans longer that fruit flies to worry about the boring stuff.
Now they can claim that Linux contains Unix code.
SCOvIBM: In the wake of the recent opinion issued by Judge Kimball, fact discovery will continue until 27 Jan 2006, and the parties must disclose with specificity all "allegedly infringing materials" by 22 Dec 2005. Redacted and unsealed motions are being rapidly released, with SCO finally joining in. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the privilege log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, now partially redacted discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.
SCOvNovell: On 29 Jul 2005 Novell answered SCO's amended complaint and filed an impressive array of counterclaims . Perhaps the most compelling request that Novell indicates they will present to the court seeks to require that income SCO received from Microsoft, Sun, and the other "Intellectual Property Licenses with Linux end users and UNIX vendors" be held in a "constructive trust" until Novell's contract claims are decided. Other counterclaims call for relief relating to SCO's alleged slander of Novell's title to UNIX System V copyrights and declarative, injunctive, and monetary relief relating to SCO's alleged breaches of the contracts effecting the sale of Novell's UNIX business to Santa Cruz. In particular, Novell seeks to have the court enforce Novell's actions to stop SCO's threats regarding Linux and AIX; to audit the terms of SCO's SCOSource licenses issued to Microsoft, Sun, and others; and to collect any money owed to Novell resulting from SCO's SCOSource activities. Unless SCO is granted an extension of time, they should reply to these counterclaims by 22 Aug 2005.
RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due approximately 28 Sept 2005.
SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is expected around 11 Aug 2005.
Pending/Recently decided motions:
Well well well well well!
Well well well well well!
WELL WELL WELL WELL WELL!!!
Look what we have here!
It's enough fodder to feed an ARMY of trolls!
The land of Grocklaw is sure to be overrun with the vermin.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Well, I sort of agree with the sentiment. We probably do spend too much time talk about the SCOundrels and not as much making cool stuff.
But we have to keep in mind it is the SCOundrels, M$, and the copyright cartel who are intent on taking away from us all the tools we use to make cool stuff.
So I recommend we pay at least some attention to these matters.
Ye fucking gods. :-)
I'm no lawyer, so I wouldn't know how these sort of depositions go, but is it normal for the opposing side to raise an objection to virtually every single question you pose? It would appear that Mr. Heise is very energetic with his objections...
Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
It looks to me that what SCO got is that they got away with it. They stole GPL code and are certainly not being punished for it.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Bad Guys don't like to fix the problems within themselves, because that's hard and scary work. So instead, and this is what makes them Bad Guys, they pretend that they're perfect and that the world outside them is imperfect. This is much easier to do, probably because it doesn't actually change anything. Changing things takes work. Wishful Thinking only takes Wishful Thinking.
Where it gets ugly is when the world says, "Uh, no, actually. You're living in an illusion and you're the ugly one. Sorry, but that's the objective reality of the situation."
When faced with this, the Bad Guy has a problem; S/he has to either fess up or fall into even more aggressive denial of the subject in order to placate themselves. Fessing up gets progressively more difficult to do as you train your brain to work in certain ways; those synaptic pathways get wider the more you use them. So typically, the classic Bad Guy will then villainize the people or things which are telling them how things really stand. And in the end if it goes far enough, the Bad Guy will actually go out and try to destroy the things or people which are making them look stupid as stupid as they are. --Usually while crying, "Evil!" or some such clattering nonsense.
The fascinating thing about it is that the Bad Guy has practiced hard at pretending fake realities into view while deliberately not seeing what's right in front of them. They are adept ignorers, and thus have horribly atrophied senses of awareness. This is they miss the obvious, like embarrassing code in their own products while hypocritically crying foul. The more Bad a Bad Guy is, the more incredibly stupid and weak-minded they become.
But even more interesting is the fact that when faced with evidence of such blatant crimes, the Bad Guy is no more able now than before to fess up to the fact that they are Bad Guys. They'll try to rationalize, and indeed lie outright that they are the ones being maligned. Where it gets interesting is that a Good Guy, (or the general public), who would be horribly embarrassed at being shown such evidence of hypocritical behavior, would turn red and fess up immediately. --That's the behavior they understand and automatically expect to see in others. So when the Bad Guy is incapable of displaying that behavior, the Good Guy automatically thinks, "Well, shit, he's not embarrassed at all! So he MUST be telling the truth!"
Weird, eh?
For a broad-scale working example of the above, look at the current U.S. administration and it's supporters.
-FL
...that would be SC0, not SCO.
Many customers are concerned about using UnixWare since they have become aware of the allegations that UnixWare is an unauthorized derivative work of the Linux® operating system.
End user customers who purchase a UnixWare IP license will not be in violation of Lot's of Mofos' intellectual property ownership or rights by using a binary distribution of UnixWare.
Warning! Individual users of UnixWare may be found liable for damages for copyright infringement of intellectual property owned by the Linux developers.
Purchase your UnixWare license today! (starting at $699)
Fascist
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
This would not explain, as the article asserts, why they tried to claim the GPL unconstitutional. If the GPL is found to be invalid, that means code is protected by regular copyright law, which would have even more restrictions than the GPL. Meaning if they actually did include kernel code in their own code they would be in an even worse situation if the GPL is invalid. Or am I missing something here?
Darl will come out and say "Linus Torvalds is the greatest hacker in the world, and I am proud to call him my son" and claim the idea for Linux was really Darl's that was shared with Linus around the breakfast table.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
Microsoft payed SCOg license fees for Linux code? And Novell gets to keep the bulk of it, once they pry it from SCOg's cold dead hands. Why does that sound so fitting all of a sudden? ;)
;)
I'm still waiting for SCOg's stock to tank so I can buy one for less than a dollar and mount it above the fish on my wall. They both smell about the same by now.
It may create uncertainty in companies that have never thought about this issue, but it certainly isn't anything new for those that are aware of I.P. issues. I was a programmer for my last company. The issue was simple: you don't copy code from outside unless you can document without a doubt where it was comming from. Even then, it was usually better to observe the idea and clean room develop the library. Unfortunately, most code is crap and following basic coding practices is beyond many programmers. So, it was usually better to create it in-house, anyways.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
It remains to be seen if they(SCO, Darl, et al) will be "punished". However, between this and the problems they will be having with Novell, I sense impending doom for SCO.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Can anyone tell me why the GPL could be unconstitutional?
It seems ok to me. I release this software under these conditions which I feel are fair and reasonable.
So where does the constitution come into play?
q
... is a good offense?
"It would be interesting, however, to see Novell's take on this." If I remember correctly...in one of the documents that Novell released... http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/legal.ht ml
Novell (Think it was a Jack Messman letter to Darl) stated that EVEN if SGI did use UNIX code it was removed quickly therefore no big deal. (My words not his)
As much as I would like to see the Linux community move in for the kill as well (assuming story is true). I think it would be better if the Linux/OSS community does not sink down to SCO's level.
Let Novell and IBM deal with them in order to protect their claims. While the Linux community watches on the sidelines.
Just my 2 cents
Does this mean SCO will refund my $699 licensing fee?
You're Robert Marsh CEO of Everyone Internet isn't it?.
I already leave your services, too late.
all your code are belong to us.
I seem to recall that SCO had the audacity to demand that Linux users pay them absurd amounts of money--for the privelage of using the software of their biggest competetor. They sued major corporations, costing millions of dollars in unfair settlements and court fees. They launched a FUD campaign against the Linux kernel, the GPL license, and FOSS.
They have not been able to produce a single piece of conclusive evidence that the Linux kernel contained their code. They didn't produce any when they were demanding licenses for Linux, and now they don't produce any in their case against IBM. They based their attack on Linux, not on any fact, but on FUD.
Now, they may have put Linux code in their kernel. They engaged in a FUD campaign against FOSS, claiming that it did/might contain copyrighted, proprietary code. They demanded that Linux customers pay them, since Linux 'did' contain 'their' UNIX code. while SCO had copyrighted, GPL'ed code in UnixWare.
Finally, we see that SCO was guilty all along. Instead of playing fair and opening the source of UnixWare, they started a full-scale holy war against Linux.
I wonder how much FUD is going to be stirred up when the GPL license comes back to haunt them?
They've been a zombie since they started down this path.
It's really sad, I used SCO products in the late 80's/early 90's for some projects and it worked fine and was pretty cheap (compared to other similar products). SCO != old-school SCO.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
The childish insults are distracting from an important point here. When did that email take place? Because if the linux kernel code on SCO's website continued to be present past that point, that would make it clear that SCO's distribution of the linux kernel under the GPL terms could not possibly be said to be anything but conscious and intentional-- because there is documentation they knew about this internally.
The observation has been made many times that if SCO owns anything at all in Linux (which they don't, but they claim they do), the ownership doesn't count for anything since they've granted everybody an irrevocable, transferrable license to use that owned material by their distribution of tarballs containing all of Linux plus that little file saying "we grant you a license to use this under the terms of the GPL". If this email proves SCO was fully aware of what they were doing by distributing this tarball and just didn't care, that would seem to make that argument rock-solid.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
The only uncertainty created here is in SCO's sanity as a company. After the legal whooping and full successful legal testing of GPL and open source licensing in general going on in this case (read: Linux is winning, hands down), the conclusion is clear: use the source and follow the license is a recipe for business success. Use the source and disregard the license, on the other hand, is the business failure known as SCO (or, alternatively, Darl McBride).
what's even sadder is that Caldera OpenLinux was actually pretty good. i liked it, i thought the install was pretty well done... .
one thing that needs to be remembered is that Darl's gang is *nothing* like what the original SCO or Caldera used to be... the name may be the same but there's no genetic connection, like some scheming stranger adopting the name of someone reputable to commit some scam... . hrm.
When SCO is forced to gpl the UNIX kernal we'll have GNU/UNIX. Its funney on so many levels.
See AT&T vs UC Berkeley.
Good luck trying to get a BSD style settlement, though, SCO. There never was any (non-BSD) UNIX in Linux, and there are WAY too many Linux rights-holders to settle with all of the ones who've touched a particular piece of code.
So what happens when GPL-licensed code is loaded into a GPL-licensec kernel? Here's the poison test, and it's not poisoned. The whole UnixWare license came with the GPL, as well as a few other licenses, including the LGPL.
So is it poisoned? No.
Is it a copyright violation? No
Is it a GNU GPL violation? No.
Sorry to burst your bubbles. I dislike SCO along with the rest, but in this case, they covered their posteriors. READ THE LICENSES THAT CAME WITH THE PRODUCT.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Could someone explain what they are and what they do? I know their lawsuits and claims.. but what is the SCO?
SCO had to argue that the GPL was invalid because otherwise they would have no case at all. The reason is that SCO actually shipped the Linux kernel themselves, which meant that even if Linux had incorporated UNIX source code, SCO would have put it under the GPL by that action.
Just want to repeat what another poster said. The above post is false. Assumming there really is GPL code in SCO's kernel:
1. They *may* have to pay damages, if somebody sues them and wins. This is legally possible.
2. Under *NO* possible scenario do they "have" to open-source their kernel. This is FUD straight from Bill Gates.
3. Even if they *do* open-source the kernel, they are *still* liable for damages, because they were violating the copyright before they open-sourced it. Otherwise there would be a huge loophole in the GPL (just wait until the code is uselessly old and release it and you are absolved of all copyright violations?)
It is true that companies often decide to open source some piece of code that they put GPL code into, in exchange for a promise to drop any pending lawsuits, and/or just for good public relations. However there is absolutely no legal requirement that they do this, and doing it does not put them in a legally better situation than before.
#include
if...else
return
void
int
the list goes on...
I can't believe these SCO lowlives would steal from innocent Linux programmers like that.
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
I thought it was really ironic that this revelation came out just a couple of days after Mr. McBride enlightened (entertained) us with his reasons why his offering was better than Linux.
If I recall right one of his main issues with Linux was that there was no single corporate entity developing it...making the OS inherently insecure and unstable....but not unstable enough to prevent SCO from helping themselves to it!
Enough said
You're trying to tell me that they purposely put Linux code into UnixWare and they still couldn't prove that there was similar code in each source tree?
Now that's the sort of thing that investors need to know about:
Dear SCO investors,
You are investing large amounts of money in a company which;
a) Fraudulently attack large communities of developers/end users/commercial vendors
b) Fraudulently claim that aforementioned communities stole your source code and injected it into their software
c) Couldn't prove any instances of said instances of stolen code
d) Ironically stole the code from those they attacked
e) STILL couldn't prove that there was any stolen code even though they knew where it was because they put it there
You're investing in idiots who have proven they can't even find their own arses (asses for Americans).
How do you feel?
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
I think that SCO should be sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit, a bad-faith lawsuit. They violated copyright law, then attempted to claim that others had violated their copyrights.
Darl should be held personally liable along with the lawyers involved.
Best regards.
Now we know what they call us in Utah.
IANAL. Yes, it is standard for lawyers to object on every possible grounds during a deposition because if they don't, they aren't allowed to raise the objection when the deposition is used at trial.
and all your base are.. nevermind...
I don't hear much from/about him anymore. Whatever became of (CEO?) Darl McBride? He was so outspoken for a time. Does the guy now just wander into work put in his hours and go home or what? It's unusual to be so adamant about a topic and then to drop it. It seems ... disingenuous. But has the guy been speaking lately or just keeping a low profile?
So, some IP lawyer that wants to make the news and get popular with the linux community real fast just needs to post to the lkml offering to represent linux kernel copyright holders in a lawsuit filed against SCO claiming copyright infringement.
I mean, such a suit has far more proof than the SCO v. IBM case. Linux vs. SCO has a deposition from a SCO employee saying that it happened! Each and every linux kernel 2.4 copyright holder should file an individual suit against SCO, claiming massive damages. SCO is going to lose and die soon enough anyhow, but, wouldn't that be fun!
And as an odd footnote, it seems that the current set of lawsuits isn't the first time Caldera/SCO took on a major corporation in court over IP. Back in 1996, Caldera acquired the rights to DR-DOS, and then appear to have immediately sued Microsoft for unfair competition, settling for something like $150 million.
I have the funny feeling that the Caldera/SCO Board of Directors figured that if the tactic had worked once against Microsoft, it would work again against IBM.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
Let's take a look here at the models for a moment:
- Let's take OOo as an example. The app loads into X or a variant, creates its own name and data space, looks for sysinternals, and marches on for the user. Completely safe sex code. No bad things were passed; but the kernel passed data to and fro through various devices and so on in its quest to complete its interaction with OOo apps.
- Now, we're asking the UnixWare kernel to run an application that wants Linux calls supported. The app, at runtime, sees the loaded module variables co-resident (but doesn't know that) and functionals along merrily; the UnixWare kernel merrily sends info back and forth along the way. The LKP intercepts various calls, and passes them up to the 'host' kernel.
In both cases, the kernels were autonomous. SCO, provided they support the GPL characteristics of the Linux code it uses and otherwise complies with copyright notices, hasn't mixed a source with a source; two or more binaries are talking to each other. Yes, the module is linked in with the kernel. So are drivers, and other GPL code... like Apache, SAMBA, MySQL, and other GPL apps. These programs link with the kernel, too. They're not compiled in with the kernel, and the LKP isn't either.
I see a big distinction between a discrete module execution (autonomous and distinct as a NIC driver, and equally as loadable and dischargeable) and grafting Linux source code into their kernel or gcc library source, or even header files, etc into a singularity.;
The module adds functionality. It has no real 'end' product, but is discrete and therefore untainted/contaminated/poisoned.
It isn't cross-compiled. It's a run-time add-in. And SCO supplied the GPL.... but I haven't cracked that package in a year or more, and so the exact wording is a bit fuzzy. But it was the GNU GPL (and used 'empirically'== my words to cover all the FOSS stuff inside their box. Then they withdrew the LKP for reasons unstated, but surmised).
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
No there's the pot calling the kettle beige.
Anyone around with a Unixware CD who could check what is on the CD? I did a quick check on ebay, but no obvious Unixware 7.1.2.
Could someone install Unixware 7.1.2 and check what the linux kernel personality does?
According to the wording of the deposition, it's possible that the Unixware CD contains an unmodified Linux kernel - and that the LKP is just a Linux kernel. Linux has an iBCS compatibility layer, thus it might have been the simplest way to achieve Linux compatibility by using the Linux kernel _instead_ of the Unixware kernel, together with the Unixware user space.
Hey,
..... hey look pretty shiny things over there.
I watch FOX and I think I have a pretty good attention
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Why the hell should it take years to find out a fundamental fact like this? How can the judge in the case take their career in "justice" seriously, knowing that it's taken so many years just to screw around with bullshit from SCO, endless countersuits, and getting nowhere?
Cases like this should be open/shut. If SCO put Linux GPL code in their proprietary product, violating the GPL, the evidence can be found in 30 seconds with grep for christ's sake. Why should some $1000:hour lawyers spend a century arguing about some suit's deposition? If geeks ran our coding like these lawyers run their litigation, if compilers were as slow and stupid as these judges, we'd all be making $2M a year, though we'd have to wear powdered wigs and black dresses to work. What an incredible scam.
--
make install -not war
-
SCO Points cost less;Customers pay once for the mod points and have them for as long as they like.
Is Slashdot really free? Of course not.
- etc...
-Darl McBrideI'm pretty sure that it can't happen unless the owners of the origional code ( hehe novell ) decide that it is time to slap the GPL sticker on unix.
But the main reason why it should NEVER happen that the GPL is forced on any code is too insure that B. Gates claims that the GPL infects anything it touches are proven true.
The GPL is not viral, let's remember that.
Retep Vosnul
If the LKP were compiled in with the UnixWare kernel, then a big problem exists. But it's a discrete piece of code, and where it lives doesn't make much difference. I'll concede that architecturally, it lives as a module, but a driver lives in the same space, too. A driver can either be called (discrete execution) or compiled in with the kernel. When it's compiled in with the kernel, it's GPL by origin.
You'll note they never charged for the LKP; no media charge or any other charge. The kernel is a static piece of code inherently. The kernel is modded by modules, loadable drivers, but is a discrete functional unit. If/when a module or driver or other code is loaded that talks to the kernel, it's no different than other parts of the kernel that function doing various things and no different than an object module that reads USB ports.
If the code is stolen and not GPL'd, and unacknowledged/relicensed then there are both license and copyright problems.
If the blanket GPL license covers this (I can't cite case law either way) then its use, subject to the terms, is legal for SCO to distribute having followed the tenets of the license.
But I maintain that these are discrete instances, no matter where they live. If a call is intercepted, and translated and sent to the UnixWare kernel for processing, this action is no different than an Intel Pro100 driver catching a call and sending it to a Broadcom interface. Both, in my mind, are legal. If the driver is GPL, and compiled into UnixWare specifically, then it's a violation of the GPL and likely copyright, too.
This 'adaptation layer' is probably the only way to, in a legally licensed way, get Linux components to work satisfactorily given the differences in how compiled apps want to see kernel behaviour, and the reverse. Were it source in the kernel then compiled, no-- poisoned. But it's not. Your definition of linkage is imprecise for what's intended by the GPL, in my estimation.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I think that this would be a GREAT test for the GPL. Who better than SCO -the company that openly tried to destroy Linux -to test the GPL in court against.
That would put the Fear of God in companies violating the license. A large company tries some crazy shit and ends up getting utterly devastated by the end while finally solidifying the legal validity of the GPL.
Who knows if anyone will even see this post... late at night, late at posting... oh well.
In my own and personal opinion, that would just prove that bits of code has been exchanged (or stolen, depends on the way you turn it) between every major UNIX platform during their history, Linux included.
This is why SCO's case is ridiculous. But that doesn't mean there is absolutely no line originating for UnixWare (or another UNIX player) in the Linux kernel.
The SCO Group is just that, The SCO Group. Sure the Santa Cruz Operation was the acronym for SCO in old SCO/Tarantella times, but since Caldera changed its name to The SCO Group in 2002 it doesn't appear that SCO in The SCO Group is an acronym or that it actually means anything.
i think you were talking about div's before that shiny thing rudely distracted you!
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/uni x/story/0,10801,103779,00.html
With that gold suit he has a new life as an Elvis impersonator ahead of him methinks
Jonathan
http://www.justgofaster.com/
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.. GPL only says I have to make source code available upon request when someone buys something from me of which I made modifications, and of which, the original source was GPL'ed..
It really is rediculous, all this Linux Zealotting.. I now can no longer recommend Linux. It causes too much tension between the IT nerds, and the ignorant bosses.. They read about this FUD and freak out. The IT nerds can't give a straight answer because everything is still pending. All the while, MS is laughing..
So now, I tell them, go BSD and sleep well at night..
It's cleaner code anyways...
Bottom of p92:
Q: Let's just take the total.
A: Okay. The total is 175,861
Q: 175,861?
A: That's right.
Q: That represents the total dollar revenues derivable from sales of SCO Linux 4.0?
The FSF recommends that copyrights to GPL software be assigned to the FSF. You do not give up your rights to do what you want with the code
Unless "do what you want with the code" includes using it yourself in a proprietary project, or re-licensing it under some other additional license.
1: Steal code from Linux kernel ...
2: Claim to the world that pieces of SCO code were found in the linux kernel
3:
4: Profit !!
This new twist could be used by the known FUD machines in a manner as bad or worse then the original issue. Especially if the OSS community really makes a big stink about this. This how I could see it unfolding. SCO gets sued and made to look like a bunch of scoundrels, a FUDder shows how vulnerable other companies are to this - perhaps even giving specific examples. Then same FUDder advertises that the way to avoid this is to completely eliminate all OSS code from company premises.
Of course that logic is flawed, but I can see many corporations getting paranoid and developing new guidelines indicating that bringing OSS code on site is grounds for dismissal.
I'll have you SCOers know that I just got my hair cut Saturday. Fools!
It gives people an alternative to proprietary software licences and as such impedes the money-guzzling of large corporations. Remember, capitalism is for their benefit, not ours (the little guys).
Someone wants to lauch a darlbehindbars.org campaign to fund the reward for hist capture, when the time comes?
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
What is unfortunate about this whole thing is that in the end the people who suffer the most in the end are the hard working engineers and program managers who are actually trying to their products up to speed.
Management unfortunately will be unscaved and the worker bees will be out on the job because management didn't know how to keep is mouth shut.
by jackofallbrandnames (881785) on 2005.08.10 14:59 (#13284159)
...
Hmm... that's two thoughts in 9 minutes...
:-)
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
Okay, so you can go pay the millions of dollars for the lawsuit. Good luck with that.
Goddamnit people, it's "
Fuck me dead.
Salut,
Jacques
Proof our system doesn't work, and has no similarity to justice.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
You might try this...
find . -name \* -print | xargs grep -B 1 -A 1 opyright | grep -B 1 -A 1 oundation | less
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Forgot those Licenses they wanted to press onto every commercial Linux-User? Also let's not forget all that crap about the GPL being unconstitutional and unenforcable. Then they trash talked Linux so much that it now comes back to haunt them in the courts. Their PR-campaign was squarely aimed at Linux. Not to forget that it's aparently SCO corporate culture to call Linux Coders "long-haired Smellies", maybe some SCO-folks see this as their personal vendetta.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
It is easy to admit that their attempt at assessing the GPL as unconstitutional makes sense. Most Propreitary(sp? dont want to get hit by the grammar nazi) software developers consider GPL to be an infection. If they GPL a small portion of their code, even if they want to, they have to be extremely cautious as not to infect the rest of their code with GPL.
Did SCO do this?
Would not suprise me in the slightest bit. Again, yet another sign that blowhards like McBride are just trying to ride the wave for whatever money they can get out of their failing business.
I found myself asking -- What is the status of businesses that use SCO Unixware? It cant be that much.
I seem to remember that Novell was responsible for the sale of Unixware back in '95. This involved something of the vacinity of 6 million or something shares in the company , SCO. Odd almost to remember this in light of Novell's turn to Linux as its primary source of income.
Regardless, it seems unlikely that Unixware is used as commonly in business as it might seem.
"God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. "
I'm sorry, everyone. I had to do it, I say. I was compelled.
is simply that there is today some (extremely
peripheral) Linux code that is running in the
UnixWare kernel as part of the LKP subsystem.
LKP is an emulation layer that allows to run
Linux binaries under UW.
That code is, again, very peripheral. It's
mostly concerned with rearranging Linux system
calls arguments to their UW equivalents and
translating the results back to user land.
Nothing really central like scheduling, file
system or VM code, of course!
Going on means going far, going far means returning. Tao te Ching
It remains to be seen if they(SCO, Darl, et al) will be "punished"
And what exactly constitutes punishment? Is it really punishment if SCO is run into the ground but Darl walks away with all the $$$ he's made during his tenure there?
I just don't see him being punished in any reasonable scenario.
Just look at his .sig!
Better than Goatse
Seriously, what the hell?
Gotta check it out. People are trying to join the League of Long-Haired smellies left, right and centre.
Most amusing titles claimed by various members so far include Colonel Panic and Seargeant at Under-arms
cheers...ank
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
SCO could have avoided this all by remaining silent. They got cocky (and M$ funding) and went to court. I hope in the end, they are forced to pay for the stolen code!
This thread is getting silly. I am ordering this thread not to be silly again.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
So, to add to suits filed (or soon to be filed) by:
Novell
IBM
Daimler-Chrysler
Autozone
Redhat
Shareholders
Not to mention criminal investigations by the SEC and secret service, they are now going to be forced to contend with the FSF for violating the GPL.
Yay Darl!
It's not illegal to file a frivolous lawsuit. If that were the case, 95% of the active cases would have to be thrown out...
Won't someone please think of the lawyers...
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
That would explain why Caldera found the identical code it refuses to release.
Actually, Hitler was a cheese-head similar to Bush. While Hitler had some charisma and strong thinking in his earlier years, he slowly melted into a loose-minded fool, making irrational and self-destructive decisions based on illusions. The Nazi government was rotting from the top down even as German troops rolled into Russia.
Hitler was capable of giving effective and rousing anger-speeches, but his brain steadily turned to mush as his reign progressed. The only difference is that Bush started out a goof. (Though, even Bush is also capable of giving effective and rousing war-speeches; this is typical of the wishful thinker because so much time is spent thinking about how the 'enemy' is the 'enemy', polishing personal gems of hatred that those thoughts at least are easily communicated.)
--But notice how the U.S.'s opening moves on the global chessboard lack much of the skill and fire which Nazi Germany's early moves had? Afghanistan was a violent mess whereas the Nazi take over of Austria and Czechoslovakia were far more precise and effective. Iraq was and is a complete mire, ("We'll be home in 10 weeks! A Cake Walk. We KNOW where the WMD's are!"), where Poland was again far more effectively invaded and controlled.
The next moves by the U.S. (Iran, Syria), will almost certainly also be total and chaotic messes where Germany didn't begin to lose cohesion until later in the game.
This, I would suggest, means that the U.S. presents an even greater danger to the world, as it's level of Wishful Thinking and resulting ill-preparedness are more further progressed. --I suspect that it's irrational desire to control and punish any opposing viewpoints will also be greater.
With Britain actually considering the implementation of star chamber courts, the temperature of the frog-water continues to rise.
My considered opinion is that 'Terrorists' are a deliberately implemented public relations tool, coaxed along where not entirely fabricated, all designed within the darker halls of the Pentagon, Zionist Israel and Elitist Governments throughout Europe to create an excuse for war without end.
-FL
We should all donate 1 dollar toward the cost of sueing sco and forceing them to open source their kernel.
What would happen if a company were to create a product that included elements of a 3rd party NDA-laden proprietary codebase (don't show the code!) and some GPL code that requires the share-and-share alike source disclosure?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
"Even then, it was usually better to observe the idea and clean room develop the library."
..
Good thinking, MS created an empire doing just that
SCO has so much legal crap comming down the pipe, that this would really be beating a squashed bug. Something else to add to the accusations -- but, unless you can pierce the corporate veil with this and go after either Darl himself, some of the directors/executives of the company or their parent enterprises, then actually following up on this would mostly an exercise in vanity.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
That should be "...an ex-SCO employee...."
In other words, 'The SCO Group' is doing exactly what it's always done: funding its operations primarily through lawsuits rather than through selling products. Moreover, 'The SCO Group' it is exactly the same company as Caldera: all it did was change the name. It has nothing at all to do with the original SCO, except that Caldera bought the 'SCO' name when it bought the original SCO's Unix business.
The old SCO changed its name to Tarantella, and was recently acquired by Sun Microsystems.
Bwahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahah!
:p
*hehe*
*snigger*
*wipes tear from eye*
today isn't april fools, is it?
shana
Luke 19:27 is part of a parable, and certainly not a command to Christian believers for one thing. To quote it like that in the context you did is dishonest.
Might as well quote you as saying "I'm not sure whether this is true or not" implying by that that it somehow magically applies to *everything* you've said, irrespective of context, rather than just to that alleged duty in the Koran.
Or I could say that the infamous "slay them wherever you find them" bit means that all Muslims are duty-bound to slay every non-Muslim they meet for another example of dishonest quotation.
-----
My opinions are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.