Read your link again. The code was not released into the public domain. It was released under a Berkeley style license, which specifically says ``Redistributions of source code and documentation must retain the above copyright notice...'' and so forth. That is what I said in the grandparent post--Linux does not include the required copyright notice.
The fact that Dennis Ritchie wrote the code (the malloc implementation) doesn't undermine SCO's statements at all. Ritchie wrote the code as an employee of AT&T, and unless he had a very unusual contract, AT&T owned the code he wrote. AT&T held a copyright on the code which, thanks to Congress, will last until we are all dead. AT&T sold that copyright to Novell, which sold it to the old SCO, which sold it to the current SCO. So although Ritchie wrote it, SCO still holds the copyright, which is all they have ever claimed.
For that matter, it's worth noting that the fact that the code appeared in versions of BSD before 4.4 doesn't undermine SCO's claims either, because those versions of BSD require a Unix source code license, which Linux does not have. The fact that the code appeared in the Lions' book is also irrelevant, since the book carries a clear statement that the code is presented for educational value only, and that nobody is permitted to run it or base their own code on it.
SCO's claims are undermined by the fact that they released the code under a Berkeley style license back when they were named Caldera. That shows that the code has no significant value, and that Linux users would not be liable for damages even if SCO sued them. However, it's also worth noting that including the code in Linux violated the terms of SCO's license, because it did not credit Caldera as the license required.
So as far as I can see SCO still does have a tenuous claim on some versions of Linux on the basis of this code, although there is no way that any court would award them any damages for it.
It's all somewhat moot in any case since the code has been removed from current versions of Linux. Anybody bothered by SCO just needs to upgrade to kernel versions 2.4.22 or 2.5.75 or later.
Every Linux release since the IBM code was included is now stolen property and cannot be sold or distributed
This is not necessarily the case. SCO is suing IBM on the basis of contract violation for code developed by Sequent. SCO claims that their contract with Sequent says that Sequent must treat work which is derivative of Unix as confidentially as they treat Unix itself.
When IBM donated the code to Linux, they may have violated that contract. However, it does not follow that SCO now owns the code. After all, the code was written by Sequent.
Therefore, it is possible that IBM will lose the case, but that SCO will still not have any rights to the code in Linux. IBM will be liable for damages for violating the contract, but there won't be any effect on Linux.
Or of course it would work in other ways--IBM could win, or SCO could wind up owning IP rights to Linux even though they didn't write the code which IBM contributed. My point is that most of your assumptions don't follow directly from IBM losing the case.
The Lions' book may be used as a book, but not as code. It says right up front "SCO [this is old SCO, now Tarantella] has granted a license to publish solely for the purpose of creating an educational work. SCO grants no license for any other use of this material."
Incidentally, very similar code appears in Kernighan and Ritchie. However, the variables names are not precisely the same.
IBM is clearly not to blame. But remember that IBM's disputed contributions to Linux were not written by SCO and are not part of SCO's Unix. The fact that they got into Linux may give SCO a claim against IBM for violating contract, but they don't give SCO any clear IP rights to Linux. SCO wants IP rights to Linux for their Linux licensing program. SCO is showing this similar code to argue that code was copied directly from Unix to Linux, thus giving SCO IP rights to Linux, and thus justifying the Linux licensing program.
The code which SCO showed here does not appear to have been donated by IBM. In the Linux kernel it was marked with an SGI copyright.
The fact that IBM donated code to Linux may (or may not) give SCO a case against IBM. However, since that code was not written by SCO, for SCO to claim that that code gives SCO any IP rights to Linux is very tenuous.
SCO is showing this example of direct copying from Unix to Linux to show that SCO has IP rights to Linux, thus justifying their Linux licensing program.
Mind you, since this code has already been removed from the Linux kernel, it looks like it's not going to help the Linux licensing program much. Of course, SCO claims to have other examples. They're probably worth about as much as this one.
But I don't need to do that in order to say that it is different code. SCO is saying that already--they are just saying it in a (possibly deliberately) confusing manner.
SCO is claiming that code was copied directly from Unix to Linux. That is the code they are showing under NDA. SCO is also claiming that IBM/Sequent has contributed code to Linux, in violation of IBM/Sequent's contract with AT&T.
I hope that you agree with that.
Now, think about it: the IBM/Sequent code is not in Unix. Why would it be? SCO didn't write it, nor did any previous owner of the Unix source code. IBM certainly didn't give it to SCO. Why would they? For IBM, it's a competitive advantage.
So when SCO claims that code has been copied directly from Unix into Linux, they can not be talking about the IBM code, as that code was never in Unix in the first place.
Remember that the company currently called SCO used to be called Caldera, and was a Linux company. The change from SCO Unix to Linux is probably about the time that www.sco.com was transferred from the old SCO (now called Tarantella) to the new SCO (formerly called Caldera).
Also, aren't the NUMA and RCU multi-processor patents owned by IBM? SCO might own some of the code, but since they are licensing IBM's patents IBM could sue them for infringing on their patents.
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, but IBM could only sue SCO for patent infringement if SCO's code actually uses NUMA and RCU. There is no particular evidence that it does.
The lawsuit against IBM was always about IBM/Sequent taking code which they had written and contributing it to Linux. In the lawsuit SCO claims that by contributing that code to Linux, IBM violated their contract. SCO isn't claiming that they own that code; they are claiming a contract violation based on an extended notion of derivative work.
SCO's claim concerning Linux licensing is not about the IBM code. It is about different code which SCO claims was copied directly from Unix into Linux. That is the code which SCO is showing under NDA.
SCO is trying to get money from Linx users on the basis of code which SCO claims has been copied directly from Unix into Linux. This is the code which SCO has been showing under NDA.
This code is not the same as the code which is the basis for the IBM lawsuit.
I'm repeating myself a lot here, because people keep getting this wrong day after day.
SCO is not trying to sell Linux licenses on the basis of the Sequent code. They are doing it on the basis of completely different code which SCO claims has been copied directly from Unix to Linux. The latter code is what SCO has been showing under NDA.
There is the IBM lawsuit code, and there is the Linux licensing code. Two different things.
The code for NUMA and other multi-processor stuff is the basis for SCO's complaint against IBM.
It isn't the basis for SCO's claim that Linux infringes on SCO's IP. That is based on code which SCO claims has been directly copied from Unix into Linux. This code has only been revealed under NDA. It is not NUMA, etc.
The NDA isn't about the code which IBM/Sequent wrote and contributed to Linux.
The NDA is about different, unrelated, code, which SCO claims was copied directly from Unix into Linux.
It is the latter code which is the basis for SCO's Linux licensing. The code which IBM wrote is the basis for the lawsuit against IBM. Two different things.
Boy, great patent. Bet that took a lot of thought. Not to mention that, if I'm reading it right, I did exactly that using the info program at M.I.T. in 1986, if not earlier, well before the 1989 filing date.
Lack of merit? Then why did they spend 10+ years litigating this?
It's like this. Every four to eight years, the U.S. government changes its mind about everything its doing, drops all its old plans, and starts new and completely different ones. It's an extreme personality makeover. In a human being, you would call it a mid-life crisis, or brainwashing.
So, the suit being dropped? Completely typical behaviour for the U.S. government. The odd thing is that it was kept up for 10+ years.
You're thinking of Reservoir Dogs, though not all five were in the shootout. The particular situation is very similar to one in a Hong Kong film by Ringo Lam called (in English) City on Fire.
I hadn't thought about that first point before since I always took it for granted that SCO obtained permission from IBM to use RCU, NUMA,... in their OS. I am assuming that those are the patents that IBM is accusing SCO of violating.
No, IBM is using different patents. In any case, I doubt SCO is using RCU, NUMA, etc., in their OS.
Suppose you write a new operating system designed for some specific purpose and the only code it uses from Linux is the code encapsulating those four IBM patents. The way I figure it, as long as you use the code in-house only or as long as you distribute the code under the GPL, there will be no patent infringement. Is that right?
Yes, as long as your new OS is a derivative of Linux, you effectively have a license from IBM to run and distribute the code. On the other hand, if you completely replace the original Linux code, it's not clear that your OS would still be a derivative of Linux, and it's not clear whether you have a license to run the code. I say it's not clear because no court has decided what the definition of ``derivative work'' means for software.
Hey, here's an idea: why not ask Salon, or the article's author, which they would prefer?
Re:Just a thought you guys....
on
Software Archaeology
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You can copy very small sections from a book or article, with attribution, because that is fair use. Copying the whole book or article is copyright infringement.
Copying an entire article from another web site is also copyright infringement, unless of course the copyright terms of the article permit it.
Salon probably makes some money per page view. They want you to look at their web site, not copy text off of it. Copying an entire article is almost certainly copyright infringement, and makes whoever does it liable for damages.
When I was in high school I used to play a game called Haunt. It was like Adventure and Zork, but much wackier.
I went looking for it again a couple of years ago, but it has been lost. It was written in a language which no longer exists: OPS-4. Even the original source code has disappeared. All that is left is a partial port, to another language which no longer exists (OPS-5). Here is a brief description by the author.
Looking at the source code for the partial port gives some of the feel of the game:
The cube tastes like sugar. You are suddenly surrounded by
a herd of moose. They start talking to you about a moose-load of things. One walks over to you and whispers, 'Fa Lowe, why her?' You find yourself staring at your toes for a long time, and enjoying it.
The lights dim. A massive door on the east wall
opens revealing a bank of computers, generators, and misc. electronic gear. The generators start to scream. The lights dim more. Suddenly sparks start to fly from the equipment. The body on the table starts to jerk around.
As suddenly as it started, the generators turn off, the wall closes. And everything returns to normal..... Then the body rises, removes its sheet and it is a monster.
The monster approaches you and says 'Trick or Treat'
I posted this already, but what the heck, I'll repeat myself....
SCO claims that their contract with IBM (originally between AT&T and IBM) "requires that IBM maintain confidentiality of sources and derivative code." In other words, SCO has a two part claim. First, they claim that JFS, NUMA, etc., are derivative works of Unix. Second, they claim that when IBM donated the code to Linux, they violated the contract requiring them to maintain confidentiality of derivative code.
If SCO is correct about their contract, the second part of their claim will probably stand up. The first part is certainly questionable.
After all, there are only so many ways to skin a cat, and coders will often use very predictable names to when coding the same task.
Based on what SCO showed me, it was quite plausible that the two pieces of code--in Unixware and in Linux--came from the same source. The similarities went well beyond predictable names and choice of algorithms. I say this as a practicing programmer with extensive experience.
Did you see any "rocket scientists" on the premises?
I saw only four people on the premises. None of them appeared to be rocket scientists. But I didn't go into the real office, just a conference room. It's not like they gave me a guided tour, much less answered all my questions.
Slashdot Mirror
I use UUCP with qmail. It's easy.
Read your link again. The code was not released into the public domain. It was released under a Berkeley style license, which specifically says ``Redistributions of source code and documentation must retain the above copyright notice...'' and so forth. That is what I said in the grandparent post--Linux does not include the required copyright notice.
The fact that Dennis Ritchie wrote the code (the malloc implementation) doesn't undermine SCO's statements at all. Ritchie wrote the code as an employee of AT&T, and unless he had a very unusual contract, AT&T owned the code he wrote. AT&T held a copyright on the code which, thanks to Congress, will last until we are all dead. AT&T sold that copyright to Novell, which sold it to the old SCO, which sold it to the current SCO. So although Ritchie wrote it, SCO still holds the copyright, which is all they have ever claimed.
For that matter, it's worth noting that the fact that the code appeared in versions of BSD before 4.4 doesn't undermine SCO's claims either, because those versions of BSD require a Unix source code license, which Linux does not have. The fact that the code appeared in the Lions' book is also irrelevant, since the book carries a clear statement that the code is presented for educational value only, and that nobody is permitted to run it or base their own code on it.
SCO's claims are undermined by the fact that they released the code under a Berkeley style license back when they were named Caldera. That shows that the code has no significant value, and that Linux users would not be liable for damages even if SCO sued them. However, it's also worth noting that including the code in Linux violated the terms of SCO's license, because it did not credit Caldera as the license required.
So as far as I can see SCO still does have a tenuous claim on some versions of Linux on the basis of this code, although there is no way that any court would award them any damages for it.
It's all somewhat moot in any case since the code has been removed from current versions of Linux. Anybody bothered by SCO just needs to upgrade to kernel versions 2.4.22 or 2.5.75 or later.
Every Linux release since the IBM code was included is now stolen property and cannot be sold or distributed
This is not necessarily the case. SCO is suing IBM on the basis of contract violation for code developed by Sequent. SCO claims that their contract with Sequent says that Sequent must treat work which is derivative of Unix as confidentially as they treat Unix itself.
When IBM donated the code to Linux, they may have violated that contract. However, it does not follow that SCO now owns the code. After all, the code was written by Sequent.
Therefore, it is possible that IBM will lose the case, but that SCO will still not have any rights to the code in Linux. IBM will be liable for damages for violating the contract, but there won't be any effect on Linux.
Or of course it would work in other ways--IBM could win, or SCO could wind up owning IP rights to Linux even though they didn't write the code which IBM contributed. My point is that most of your assumptions don't follow directly from IBM losing the case.
The Lions' book may be used as a book, but not as code. It says right up front "SCO [this is old SCO, now Tarantella] has granted a license to publish solely for the purpose of creating an educational work. SCO grants no license for any other use of this material."
Incidentally, very similar code appears in Kernighan and Ritchie. However, the variables names are not precisely the same.
IBM is clearly not to blame. But remember that IBM's disputed contributions to Linux were not written by SCO and are not part of SCO's Unix. The fact that they got into Linux may give SCO a claim against IBM for violating contract, but they don't give SCO any clear IP rights to Linux. SCO wants IP rights to Linux for their Linux licensing program. SCO is showing this similar code to argue that code was copied directly from Unix to Linux, thus giving SCO IP rights to Linux, and thus justifying the Linux licensing program.
Don't forget SCO's Linux licensing program.
The code which SCO showed here does not appear to have been donated by IBM. In the Linux kernel it was marked with an SGI copyright.
The fact that IBM donated code to Linux may (or may not) give SCO a case against IBM. However, since that code was not written by SCO, for SCO to claim that that code gives SCO any IP rights to Linux is very tenuous.
SCO is showing this example of direct copying from Unix to Linux to show that SCO has IP rights to Linux, thus justifying their Linux licensing program.
Mind you, since this code has already been removed from the Linux kernel, it looks like it's not going to help the Linux licensing program much. Of course, SCO claims to have other examples. They're probably worth about as much as this one.
In fact, I have seen the code under NDA.
But I don't need to do that in order to say that it is different code. SCO is saying that already--they are just saying it in a (possibly deliberately) confusing manner.
SCO is claiming that code was copied directly from Unix to Linux. That is the code they are showing under NDA. SCO is also claiming that IBM/Sequent has contributed code to Linux, in violation of IBM/Sequent's contract with AT&T.
I hope that you agree with that.
Now, think about it: the IBM/Sequent code is not in Unix. Why would it be? SCO didn't write it, nor did any previous owner of the Unix source code. IBM certainly didn't give it to SCO. Why would they? For IBM, it's a competitive advantage.
So when SCO claims that code has been copied directly from Unix into Linux, they can not be talking about the IBM code, as that code was never in Unix in the first place.
QED.
Remember that the company currently called SCO used to be called Caldera, and was a Linux company. The change from SCO Unix to Linux is probably about the time that www.sco.com was transferred from the old SCO (now called Tarantella) to the new SCO (formerly called Caldera).
Also, aren't the NUMA and RCU multi-processor patents owned by IBM? SCO might own some of the code, but since they are licensing IBM's patents IBM could sue them for infringing on their patents.
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, but IBM could only sue SCO for patent infringement if SCO's code actually uses NUMA and RCU. There is no particular evidence that it does.
The lawsuit against IBM was always about IBM/Sequent taking code which they had written and contributing it to Linux. In the lawsuit SCO claims that by contributing that code to Linux, IBM violated their contract. SCO isn't claiming that they own that code; they are claiming a contract violation based on an extended notion of derivative work.
SCO's claim concerning Linux licensing is not about the IBM code. It is about different code which SCO claims was copied directly from Unix into Linux. That is the code which SCO is showing under NDA.
Two different things.
SCO is trying to get money from Linx users on the basis of code which SCO claims has been copied directly from Unix into Linux. This is the code which SCO has been showing under NDA.
This code is not the same as the code which is the basis for the IBM lawsuit.
Two different things.
I'm repeating myself a lot here, because people keep getting this wrong day after day.
SCO is not trying to sell Linux licenses on the basis of the Sequent code. They are doing it on the basis of completely different code which SCO claims has been copied directly from Unix to Linux. The latter code is what SCO has been showing under NDA.
There is the IBM lawsuit code, and there is the Linux licensing code. Two different things.
The code for NUMA and other multi-processor stuff is the basis for SCO's complaint against IBM.
It isn't the basis for SCO's claim that Linux infringes on SCO's IP. That is based on code which SCO claims has been directly copied from Unix into Linux. This code has only been revealed under NDA. It is not NUMA, etc.
The NDA isn't about the code which IBM/Sequent wrote and contributed to Linux.
The NDA is about different, unrelated, code, which SCO claims was copied directly from Unix into Linux.
It is the latter code which is the basis for SCO's Linux licensing. The code which IBM wrote is the basis for the lawsuit against IBM. Two different things.
this AIX crap is really just a proxy war for the fight against linux users
Well, no, this AIX crap is about trying to get $3 billion out of IBM.
It's going to take SCO a long time to get $3 billion out of Linux users at $1300 a pop.
Boy, great patent. Bet that took a lot of thought. Not to mention that, if I'm reading it right, I did exactly that using the info program at M.I.T. in 1986, if not earlier, well before the 1989 filing date.
Lack of merit? Then why did they spend 10+ years litigating this?
It's like this. Every four to eight years, the U.S. government changes its mind about everything its doing, drops all its old plans, and starts new and completely different ones. It's an extreme personality makeover. In a human being, you would call it a mid-life crisis, or brainwashing.
So, the suit being dropped? Completely typical behaviour for the U.S. government. The odd thing is that it was kept up for 10+ years.
You're thinking of Reservoir Dogs, though not all five were in the shootout. The particular situation is very similar to one in a Hong Kong film by Ringo Lam called (in English) City on Fire.
I hadn't thought about that first point before since I always took it for granted that SCO obtained permission from IBM to use RCU, NUMA, ... in their OS. I am assuming that those are the patents that IBM is accusing SCO of violating.
No, IBM is using different patents. In any case, I doubt SCO is using RCU, NUMA, etc., in their OS.
Suppose you write a new operating system designed for some specific purpose and the only code it uses from Linux is the code encapsulating those four IBM patents. The way I figure it, as long as you use the code in-house only or as long as you distribute the code under the GPL, there will be no patent infringement. Is that right?
Yes, as long as your new OS is a derivative of Linux, you effectively have a license from IBM to run and distribute the code. On the other hand, if you completely replace the original Linux code, it's not clear that your OS would still be a derivative of Linux, and it's not clear whether you have a license to run the code. I say it's not clear because no court has decided what the definition of ``derivative work'' means for software.
Hey, here's an idea: why not ask Salon, or the article's author, which they would prefer?
You can copy very small sections from a book or article, with attribution, because that is fair use. Copying the whole book or article is copyright infringement.
Copying an entire article from another web site is also copyright infringement, unless of course the copyright terms of the article permit it.
Salon probably makes some money per page view. They want you to look at their web site, not copy text off of it. Copying an entire article is almost certainly copyright infringement, and makes whoever does it liable for damages.
I went looking for it again a couple of years ago, but it has been lost. It was written in a language which no longer exists: OPS-4. Even the original source code has disappeared. All that is left is a partial port, to another language which no longer exists (OPS-5). Here is a brief description by the author.
Looking at the source code for the partial port gives some of the feel of the game:
I posted this already, but what the heck, I'll repeat myself....
SCO claims that their contract with IBM (originally between AT&T and IBM) "requires that IBM maintain confidentiality of sources and derivative code." In other words, SCO has a two part claim. First, they claim that JFS, NUMA, etc., are derivative works of Unix. Second, they claim that when IBM donated the code to Linux, they violated the contract requiring them to maintain confidentiality of derivative code.
If SCO is correct about their contract, the second part of their claim will probably stand up. The first part is certainly questionable.
After all, there are only so many ways to skin a cat, and coders will often use very predictable names to when coding the same task.
Based on what SCO showed me, it was quite plausible that the two pieces of code--in Unixware and in Linux--came from the same source. The similarities went well beyond predictable names and choice of algorithms. I say this as a practicing programmer with extensive experience.
Did you see any "rocket scientists" on the premises?
I saw only four people on the premises. None of them appeared to be rocket scientists. But I didn't go into the real office, just a conference room. It's not like they gave me a guided tour, much less answered all my questions.