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.
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.
"You've got UnixWare in my Linux!"
"And you've got Linux in my UnixWare!"
"AAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!"
I beleive the exact code they cited as stolen was:
return 0;
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
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.
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:
So I'm not sure what "FUD" you're refering to. Yes, generally the free software movement tends to focus on calls to remove violating code, but they don't have to, and they can, if they want, get real damages if they're prepared to take the cases to court.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Just announced: Linus Torvalds demands $699 from Darl McBride
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
Sorry, somehow his text got truncated during the submission. "SCObi-Wan" is the full name.
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.
The FSF is not the copyright holder, and has no grounds to sue. Linus et. al. would have to do that.
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, because of the GPL, but because the FSF is the copyright holder, they can and will use their attorney-fu moves against people who violate the GPL.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
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.
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/
-
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 McBride