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."
Haha, who says there's no such thing as karma... It's just poetic justice that SCO gets what they deserve.
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.
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?
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
The FSF doesn't hold title to much if any of the Linux kernel. Once it is known in detail which code was misappropriated then we can talk about who has standing to sue. Linus probably has standing regardless.
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.
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
This is the exact reason why Microsoft bought those SCO "Linux licenses". It funded a 2 year FUD campaign much more powerful than anything Microsoft could have done under their own name, and no doubt scared litigation-conscious companies away from Linux and into the safe arms of Microsoft. I think they have now lost all credibility and will be filing Chapter 11 within a year, but it was great publicity for Microsoft while it lasted.
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
As far as I know MS did not buy "Linux licenses", they bought a Unix license. There's no need to confuse the issue anymore than what it already is.
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.
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.
you can tell Linux has used Unix code (mainly their apps) by just using their programs. Some dude sitting at his computer probably noticed the similiarity between every POSIX *nix implementation and Linux.
Dude, you can't tell that the source is the same by running a program, shut up. Especially since this is talking about Linux, a fucking KERNEL. Linux isn't the apps. Most 'Linux' distro's use the GNU suite of apps. Also, "some dude sitting at his computer" doesn't have sco's unixware installed. And that bit about Microsoft stealing source - I'm sorry, I love hating on Microsoft, but that just shows how much of an idiot you are. If your talking about the code they took from BSD, that was perfectly legal and morally fine, since it was under the BSD license, which permits it.
Also, it seems this time it isn't "SCO says Linux contains their proprietory code.",but "SCO may have Linux code."
Good job sherlock, I couldn't have gathered it by the title of the article.
I have no idea how you got moderated interesting. The only thing interesting about your post was its showcasing of how idiots will post when they have no clue what they're talking about. Your nickname (WindozeSux) say's alot about your intelligence, by the way.
Putting Stallman on the stand is about the only way to fuck the case up.
Don't send a hacker to do a lawyers job. Even if FSF were to get involved, it doesn't have to involve RMS. Send Eben Moglen, he'd probably do a good job.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
It's completely absurd from a legal point of view though. A great many licenses like the BSD licenses, which require even less of the licensee (let's not start another flamewar over "freer" here) have been through the courts and upheld. There's no case of "almost-but-not-quite-public-domain" licenses being nullified. And even if they were, they'd return to the default. And under US law, the Berne convention and so on that means copyrighted, not public domain. If they had gotten their way, you'd see pigs flying and an ice skating party in hell.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
RMS: "Judge. Notice that I did not say 'Your Honor' because I do not honor the authority that you claim to hold. Furthermore, I will not place my hand on a Bible and pledge anyhthing to you as the Bible is a book of fairy tales and fables for which I hold no respect. And..."