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."
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
I noticed the big 'confidential' on the first page of the pdf...
Someone care to exlpain?
"Piter, too, is dead."
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.
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
It is a bit more complex than that.
In the ordinary course of things you can probably convince a court that inadvertent infringement on a small scale should not result in a major damages award. This is after all what most people on the pro-Linux side have been maintaining all along. The minute that SCO actually state with specificity the code they claim is stolen in Linux the code will be gone in a New York Miniute.
But the whole SCO case amply demonstrates that Microsoft has a point. The GPL is certainly good for creating a SCO like FUD lawsuit that can be used to obtain discovery powers and burn huge quantities of legal fees. The best corporate lawyers I have worked with are the ones who avoid the lawsuits in the first place. From that point of view the GPL is a real tar baby and RMS has told me personally that this was essentially his intention all along.
I don't think that things are quite as simple for SCO in this particular circumstance. The problem is that they are going to the court arguing that IBM has damaged SCO by allegedly stealling copyright material from them. If IBM can establish that SCO has been stealling copyright material from others then there are some major consequences.
The first of these is that SCO has presumably had to execute an affidavit in which they claim that they have good title to the code in question. If IBM can prove that title is questionable they score important points. If IBM can prove that SCO acted in bad faith with respect to the title then there is a sizable chance that the whole suit gets thrown out.
At this point of course we are still waiting for SCO to actually state with specificity what parts of the code infringes. And I strongly suspect that SCO will never tell.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
How does the RIAA work it out to where they can sue on behalf of member companies without those companies assigning copyright to the RIAA? Could you just do the same thing with the FSF?