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.
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?
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.
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.
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,
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.
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. :-)
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...
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
They weren't trying to invalidate the GPL completely - they were trying to argue that anything under the GPL was essentially public domain, and that the GPL didn't have the power to require redistribution of source code. If they had gotten their way, then they would've been clear.
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.
Thanks for linking my home page... Hey, wait a.......
This is not an illusion, a rip-off, or a ninja technique!
"Can anyone tell me why the GPL could be unconstitutional?"
A Constitutional Amendment could be passed that rescinds protections that are currently granted under copyright law, or that supersedes contract law in its current form. Then the doctrine of "ex post facto" could be abandoned.
Seriously, this is what would be required in order to make "the GPL" "unconstitutional".
The GPL is simple enough that any attack on it must also be applicable to any other software license that grants distribution rights under copyright law. That's pretty much all of them.
Do you think Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, Sony, Apple, or anyone else is willing to let that happen, even if there were a plausible scenario under which it could happen?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is by memory and a bit of help from a search engine and Distrowatch, and written a bit late at night, but here goes...
SCO stands for the Santa Cruz Operation Group, and was originally a company named Caldera. The original SCO is now known as Tarantella. The original SCO was a company founded in the 1970s which made a flavour of Unix for x86 processors.
In 2000, Caldera bought the rights to that Unix from the original SCO/Tarantella (Caldera was also making a form of Linux called Caldera Linux, and had been making it since 1998). In 2002 Caldera bought the rights to use the name SCO from Tarantella, and renamed itself the SCO Group and the version of Linux SCO Linux.
By about 2003, the SCO Group was in financial difficulties, and Darl McBride was brought in. SCO Linux was suspended, and McBride had the SCO Group begin the lawsuits and legal threats, including threatening the people who had bought Caldera/SCO Linux from them with a lawsuit if they didn't pay the legal fee (and I don't care how tired I am and how much of an aside this is, it's still a REALLY STUPID thing to do).
And you know the rest.
I hope this helped.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
Well, it's not necessarily that straightforward. If you gave a random Linux distribution CD to a friend of yours, but unbeknownst to you there was a GPL-licensed piece of software on there that incorporated significant chunks of your non-GPL code without your permission... should that mean that you've officially approved your intellectual property to be licensed under the GPL?
Well, I would say that's a very different situation-- and I've seen analyses of this very issue which claim that under such a case no, you haven't licensed anything, due to something I do not understand called "the doctrine of mutual mistake".
However, that's if the presence of the GPL code was "unbeknowst to you". What I am getting at is that the email quoted in the toplevel post could potentially constitute proof that the GPL-distribution-of-hypthetically-derived code actions happened knowingly. That would change the situation significantly. This was the entire point I was trying to make.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
You can't short a stock after the price drops below $5.00.
I'm not sure if it's an SEC rule, or an exchange rule.
You are repeatedly ignoring my point.
The LKP intercepts various calls, and passes them up to the 'host' kernel.
...
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.;
A kernel module is not 'discrete'. It runs in the same address space as the kernel itself. Think of it in the same way that you would think of a .so or a .dll file. LKP is definitely implemented as either a loadable kernel module or as part of the kernel itself, as it implements a trap for the int0x80 call gate (which linux and others use to jump from user to supervisor mode upon the commencement of a system call.)
Reference: http://uw714doc.sco.com/en/LX_uw/LKP_system_call_i nterface.html
What you have repeatedly ignored is the GPL's policy re: linking. From gnu.org:
This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License.
Ergo, linking a proprietary piece of code to a piece of GPL'd code is not permitted (exceptions from the author(s) of the GPL'd code notwithstanding.)
You're doing it wrong.
-
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 McBrideIt'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
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.