The SCO Group and toadies are just rehashing the same unsubtantial arguments that Microsoft's Craig Mundie made in May 2001.
In response an unprecedented gathering of the free software/open source development leaders actually agreed on a single statement in reply
The Craig Mundie speech is old news by now, so hopefully this is the last
word. A number of the free software evangelists, in informal discussion,
felt that the proper response to Microsoft would be to stand together.
Mundie's speech shows that Microsoft's strategy is to keep us divided and
attack us one at a time, until all are gone. Thus, their emphasis on the
GPL this time.
While we didn't try to represent every group and project, many major
voices of Open Source and Free Software have signed this message. We
took a while, because we're not used to this, but we'll be better next
time. So, please
note the signatures at the bottom of this message - we will stand
together, and defend each other.
Bruce Perens
We note a new triumph for Open Source and Free Software: we
have become so serious a competitor to Microsoft that their executives
publicly announce their fear. However, the only threat that we present
to Microsoft is the end of monopoly practices. Microsoft is welcome to
participate as an equal partner, a role held today by entities ranging
from individuals to transnational corporations like IBM and HP. Equality,
however, isn't what Microsoft is looking for. Thus, they have announced
Shared Source, a system that could be summarized as Look but don't
touch - and we control everything.
Microsoft deceptively compares Open Source to failed dot-com business
models. Perhaps they misunderstand the term Free Software. Remember
that Free refers to liberty, not price. The dot-coms gave away goods
and services as loss-leaders, in unsuccessful efforts to build their
market share. In contrast, the business model of Open Source is to reduce
the cost of software development and maintenance by distributing it
among many collaborators.
The success of the Open Source model arises from copyright holders
relaxing their control in exchange for more and better collaboration.
Developers allow their software to be freely redistributed and modified,
asking only for the same privileges in return.
There is much software that is essential to a business, but which does not
differentiate that business from its competitors. Even companies that have
not fully embraced the Open Source model can justify collaboration on Free
Software projects for this non-differentiating software, because of the
money they will save. And such collaborations are often overwhelmingly
successful: for example, the project that produces the market-leading
Apache web server was started by a group of users who agreed to share
the work of maintaining a piece of software that each of their businesses
depended on.
The efficiency of this cooperation is in the best interests of the
user. But Free Software is also directly in the user's interest, because
it means that the users control the software they use. When they do
business with Open Source vendors, the vendors do not dominate them.
With very little funding, the GNU/Linux system has become a significant
player in many major markets, from Internet servers to embedded
devices. Our GUI desktop projects have astounded the software industry
by going from zero to being comparable with or superior to others in
only 4 years. Workstation manufacturers like Sun and HP have selected
our desktops to replace their own consortium projects, because our work
was better. An entire industry has been built around Free Software, and
is growing rapidly despite an unfavorable market. The success of software
companies like Red Hat, and the benefits to vendors such as Dell and IBM,
demonstrate that Free Software is not at all incompatible with
a camel who wishes he'd never smoked cigarettes. Joe is having trouble feeling COOL these days, now that he's lost most of his hair. Worst of all, Joe just realized that he's been MaNiPuLaTeD all his life by tobacco companies. Poor guy -- his tobacco IQ never was very high.
Hmmm,
Meet Joe WinTroll, a user who wished he'd never upgraded to WindowsXP. Joe is having trouble feeling COOL these days, now that he's lost most of his digital rights. Worst of all, Joe just realized that he's been MaNiPuLaTeD all his life by Microsoft. Poor guy -- his technical IQ never was very high.
A quick glance over Xen group's paper leaves me very impressed with the performance these techniques can achieve. That the Xen group has decided to relase the code under the GPL leaves me very greatful. However, that both Intel Research and Microsoft Research has funded it, leave me somewhat concerned.
Just as Microsoft's XP backward Win9x compatability opens up many locally exploitable API to gain SystemLocal privilege access, to the point where many programs need Adminstrator privilege to run, existing XP and win2k software would open up too many opportunities for helpfull hacker to bypass Microsoft's NGSCB DRM mechanisms.
Microsofts all too obvious solution is to provide a "Virtual" PC mode, running a modified XP and WinME, with the NGSCB providing virtual filesystems and hardware access. All, access of course, with the NGSCB DRM scanning and control.
Where do you want to go tomorrow?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation are about to publish a papercriticizing a component of the "trusted computing" technology promoted by Microsoft, IBM and other technology companies, calling the feature a threat to computer users..
The original netcraft article on the "Migration" to Windows Server 2003 hints at the fact that that most of the migration is occuring on hosted systems, where the hosting providers have received very favorable terms ( read as bribes ) to switch to Windows2003. Myhosting.com continues to be the top hoster of active Windows Server 2003 sites, and now has over 98% of their active sites migrated to Windows 2003. The month before, Myhosting.com was hosting 13,504 , in comparison to last months 32,810, an increase which accounts for the 5%. Yes, one provider.
Does IBM indemnify the intellectual property in Linux the way it indemnifies the intellectual property in every IBM software product?
Does Microsoft ( or any other proprietary software vendor ) truly indemnifies it's own customers? Not if Microsoft's current license agreements are any thing to go by.
ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE PRODUCT.
Analysis ....
Also, Microsoft disclaims that this software will not infringe on the intellectual property rights of others. This is a potentially serious issue, as has been recently shown through the legal dispute between Timeline Inc. and Microsoft. Timeline has won a recent ruling which exposes all Microsoft SQL Server developers to a serious patent encumbrance.
The Timeline Inc case bring up an important issue; while no vendor can expected to identify all potential patent violation when developing software, when the vendor does purchase and license technology from a third party, the vendor should insure that the end user/develop is not put at further risk.
Even Microsoft's May 27th changes which apply only to customers under enterprise licensing contracts, which Microsoft claims grants greater immunity, contains loop holes which greatly negate Microsoft's liability.
Our obligations will not apply to the extent that the claim or
adverse final judgment is based on (i) specifications you provide to
us for the service deliverables; (ii) code or materials provided by
you as part of service deliverables; (iii) your running of the
product, fix or service deliverables after we notify you to
discontinue running due to such a claim; (iv) your combining the
product, fix or service deliverables with a non-Microsoft product,
data or business process; (v) damages attributable to the value of
the use of a non-Microsoft product, data or business process; (vi)
your altering the product, fix or service deliverables; (vii) your
distribution of the product, fix or services deliverable to, or its
use for the benefit of, any third party; (viii) your use of our
trademark(s) without express written consent to do so; or (ix) for
any trade secret claim, your acquiring a trade secret (a) through
improper means; (b) under circumstances giving rise to a duty to
maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (c) from a person (other
than us or our affiliates) who owed to the party asserting the claim
a duty to maintain the secrecy or limit the use of the trade secret.
You will reimburse us for any costs or damages that result from
these actions.
Loophole #1
"(ii) code or materials provided by you as part of service deliverables"
This would effectively still indemnify Microsoft against most of the Timeline Inc patent claims, as it is the developer/end user's code ( even visual basic code ) which would be in violation of Timeline's patent claims.
Microsoft has a history of licensing third party code and patents in such a manner that still leaves developers and users exposed to IP threats. Even going back to the LZH/GIF Unisys patents,
"Microsoft Corporation obtained a license under the above Unisys LZW patents in September, 1996. Microsoft's license does NOT extend to software developers or third parties
The two Microsoft.NET patent applications are just two examples of many such patents in the many in the pipeline.
Microsoft is able to 'get away' with getting these patents in exactly the same way Eolas was able to be granted it's plugin patent for browsers, dispite Apples HyperCard and LotusNotes had the same functionality -- by tying that patented functionality to a platform.
Where Eolas was able to get the plugin patent for browsers, Microsoft is quite able to get patents for existing functionality on it's.net platform -- even if the same functionality has been demonstrated on Java/Perl/Python/CORBA etc.
The US Patent Office is a over a year behind in it's proccessing of patent applications, new applications covering the.NET API for network and webapplications are just appearing.
Microsoft's NGSCB model for DRM content management grants Microsoft effective root digital certificate control over both software and content. It would be a monopoly even stronger than Microsoft's existing desktop dominance. Just as with Microsoft's proprietary file formats and protocols, the network effect would result in any non-dominate player or vendor facing too great a barrier to provide effective monopoly negating free-market competition.
The long term problem with IBM's model of the TCPA is exactly the same with that of clipper chip encryption, the owner of the PC does NOT control the attestation master keys. This leads to the same escrow agent model which is far to open to exploitation by The New American Corporate Soviet.
The next version of Windows NT, code-named Cairo and targeted for release sometime in 1995, will be built around the concepts of objects and component software. It will have a native OFS (Object File System) and distributed system support.
Cairo, Microsoft's object-oriented successor to Windows NT, will begin beta testing in early 1996 for release in 1997. Although Microsoft is not revealing the full details of Cairo yet, there are enough clues within current Microsoft OSes to yield a good idea of how it might work.
At the first NT developers conference in 1992, Bill Gates announced that Cairo would arrive in three years and would incorporate object-oriented technologies, especially an object file system. Since then, we've seen Windows NT 3.1, NT 3.5, NT 3.51, and most recently NT 4.0. None is object oriented, none has an object file system, none is Cairo. It seems that Cairo is Microsoft's sly way of promising the world. "Will we see Plug and Play in NT?" "Oh yes, of course, in Cairo." "Will NT ever produce world peace and cheap antigravity?" "You bet -- in Cairo."
The so call Longhorn WinFS directory is just another rencarnation of the Cairo object orientated file system.
Microsoft Corp. has once again shifted the schedule for the release of "Longhorn," the company's next major version of Windows, leaving some users up in the air about an upgrade path.
Microsoft executives from Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates on down have long described Longhorn as the Redmond, Wash., company's most revolutionary operating system to date. The product was originally expected to ship next year. Then in May of this year, officials pushed back the release date to 2005. But now executives are declining to say when they expect the software to ship.
"We do not yet know the time frame for Longhorn, but it will involve a lot of innovative and exciting work," said Gates at a company financial analyst meeting this summer. Since then, other Microsoft officials have neither retracted nor clarified Gates' statement.
Microsoft have been attempting this type of functionality since 1991, over a decade. Meanwhile, one open source GNOME developer, with help from the other core GNOME developers, provides most of the features within months.
What Microsoft people really mean when they talk about security is security for Microsoft from you. NGSCB's main purpose is to make sure users such as yourself aren't pirating Microsoft's or partners' software or any other copyrighted content--even if that means taking over your system remotely and removing or disabling the offending untrusted software....
... It boils down to this: In a traditional security scenario, you as a user have control over your system to protect it from outside attackers who are enemies of your system. With Microsoft's vision of the trusted operating system, some system control is handed over to vendors and copyright holders who see you, the system's owner, as the enemy.
NGSCB + RIAA = NSA + KGB + CIA. ( R -> K )
From the Transcript of Internet Caucus Panel Discussion. Re: Administration's new encryption policy. Rep. Curt Weldon's statement
But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.
Microsoft's NGSCB model for DRM content management grants Microsoft effective root digital certificate control over both software and content. It would be a monopoly even stronger than Microsoft's existing desktop dominance. Just as with Microsoft's proprietary file formats and protocols, the network effect would result in any non-dominate player or vendor facing too great a barrier to provide effective monopoly negating free-market competition.
Loss of Fair Use Rights and doctrine of First Sale
Microsoft's NGSCB DRM model also grants content providers far too much restrictive power. For example, in the USA and in most of the world, you are legally allowed to tape broadcast content for later replay ( timeshifting ), gathering evidence for making a complaint, or legitmate research. The DRM model can be used by content providers to circumvent these legal rights. Also if Microsoft or the Codec developer drops support for a format or even a particular digital key, all that content "protected" by that methord or key becomes unreadable.
The DRM model circumvents the Doctrine of First Sale, by side shifting content from being "goods" into a so-called service. When I purchase a DVD, I own that particular physical instance of that DVD and the right to view the content on it. I expect to be able to play that DVD in any DVD player I choose to, including the DVD drive in my Linux system. Also when I have finished viewing that DVD, I expect to be able to pass or even resell that DVD to any party I choose. I might even give that DVD to my local library, and I am legally entitled to do so. As DMCA protected CSS DVDs already limits what you can do with a DVD, Microsoft's plans f
Both Caldera and old SCO employees were heavily involved in the
development of Linux as a enterprise scale platform. ( As if you haven't
read about the Trillian Project which ported Linux to Intel's IA-64
processors... http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/Trill ianProject )
Dr. Stefan Hildemann claims to have had a chance to see SCO's code show
without having to sign the NDA; he has posted his impressions (in
German). http://forum.golem.de/phorum/read.php?f=44&i=1774& t=1716
Thanks to Robert Taylor this English translation of the posting
... The crunch, however, is a function of the scheduler, which is,
over a length of about 60 lines, indeed identical except for slight
differences. In this section, there is also a whole lot of
corresponding comments...
This raises more interesting questions. Since the SMP scheduler in
question was specifically written directly for Linux kernel, and both
Caldera/SCO employees only added patches, does it not seem more likely
that if there is common source and comment then it is likely that the
source in question was copied from GPL'ed Linux source to The SCO Groups own Unix?
History, never repeats.Novell Expose-Blame Noorda
on
Novell Buys Ximian
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"History, Never Repeats, I Tell Myself, Before I Go to sleep." - Split Enz
Today Caldera Systems International, trading under the name The SCO GROUP Inc, at the direction of executives at the Canopy Group Inc, is threating the same target Linux desktop market for using the same technology that Novell owned and sublicensed to the original SCO.
Monster Tech-en developer demand tag team match
on
Essential .NET, Volume I
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Based upon job keyword searches on Monster.com, the most of the demand is still moving towards Java and J2EE. Lets play Monster Tech-en developer demand tag team over the last 31 days.
The SCO Group is currently suing IBM for breach of contract for apparently putting Unixware/Monterey "technology" in Linux. SCO/Caldera's complaint depends critically on certain historical and technical assertions which are materially false and (apparently quite intentionally) misleading.
In August 2000, just days after Caldera purchased the Old SCO server division, the then CEO of Caldera, Ransom Love, made a keynote speech at LinuxWorld 2000. A RealPlayer video stream of the event can be found at DrDobbs Journal's Technetcast
In the question and answer session at the end of the keynote, Love was asked about the possible conflict over Monterey and Linux IA-64
Q: What happens about Project Monterey, because that conflicts with the AI-64 Linux, 64-bit Linux?
Love: OK. I don't -- if we do our job right in making Linux scale over like UnixWare to the degree that everybody, that we know we can... May I ask, some people have said, "Well, people have tried this in the past, but they haven't been that successful," may I suggest: we don't have any ulterior motives for not making it successful. Technologically has not been the reason why it hasn't done it before. There's always some other motive, right? And so to talk about Monterey, clearly we want to make sure we have the same level of Linux integration on Monterey that we would have in our Unixware product. Now, we don't control, I mean, we have a great relationship... it's a joint development relationship with IBM which we intend to preserve... but they have similar interests and so this is really a very synergistic, uh, this transaction is great for all of the major partners as they have already wanted to embrace Linux moving forward.
Now, let me address one other aspect of your question, which is that the Monterey Project is in conflict with the IA-64 Linux Project. I don't believe it's in conflict at all. Now, clearly, we have tremendous vested interest in the IA-64 Linux Project and with the acquisition of SCO, they've been doing a lot, so you combine those, and we've got one of the more comprehensive offerings, I believe, on the IA-64 Linux. So that's clearly an area that we're very committed to. But like Unixware, there's elements of the Monterey kernel that are more scalable, OK? Now, on the IA-64 platform, I don't know how long of window that is, but today, it's a little bit more robust and more scalable than the IA-64 Linux is today. Now, I'm not saying that over time that won't change.
But, and let me address one other thing. Sorry, (laughs) you're getting all of it through one question. But clearly we are going to add components back to the Linux kernel on both IA-32 and IA-64 platforms. We'll work with Linus and everyone in order to make that available. That will take some time. And as I mentioned earlier, I don't know that over time you can have a single kernel -- in fact I know you can't -- that will scale, you know, the breadth of IT technology needs. So I think we're looking, in the Linux community, at having multiple kernels, so...
Q: Multiple Linux kernels? Or multiple UNIX kernels?
Love: Multiple Linux kernels as well, over time.
Q: Thank you.
Love: You bet.
I am not a lawyer, but even I can see that The SCO Group has put itself into an intractable situation, any judge will listen to evidence from the above and laugh the SCO group out of court.
It's about time to reexamine the recent claims of The SCO group and call in the lawyers and maybe the authorities
In August 2000, just days after Caldera purchased the Old SCO server division, the then CEO of Caldera, Ransom Love, made a keynote speech at LinuxWorld 2000. A RealPlayer video stream of the event can be found at DrDobbs Journal's Technetcast
In the question and answer session at the end of the keynote, Love was asked about the possible conflict over Monterey and Linux AI-64
Q: What happens about Project Monterey, because that conflicts with the IA-64 Linux, 64-bit Linux?
Love: OK. I don't -- if we do our job right in making Linux scale over like UnixWare to the degree that everybody, that we know we can... May I ask, some people have said, "Well, people have tried this in the past, but they haven't been that successful," may I suggest: we don't have any ulterior motives for not making it successful. Technologically has not been the reason why it hasn't done it before. There's always some other motive, right? And so to talk about Monterey, clearly we want to make sure we have the same level of Linux integration on Monterey that we would have in our Unixware product. Now, we don't control, I mean, we have a great relationship... it's a joint development relationship with IBM which we intend to preserve... but they have similar interests and so this is really a very synergistic, uh, this transaction is great for all of the major partners as they have already wanted to embrace Linux moving forward.
Now, let me address one other aspect of your question, which is that the Monterey Project is in conflict with the IA-64 Linux Project. I don't believe it's in conflict at all. Now, clearly, we have tremendous vested interest in the IA-64 Linux Project and with the acquisition of SCO, they've been doing a lot, so you combine those, and we've got one of the more comprehensive offerings, I believe, on the IA-64 Linux. So that's clearly an area that we're very committed to. But like Unixware, there's elements of the Monterey kernel that are more scalable, OK? Now, on the IA-64 platform, I don't know how long of window that is, but today, it's a little bit more robust and more scalable than the IA-64 Linux is today. Now, I'm not saying that over time that won't change.
But, and let me address one other thing. Sorry, (laughs) you're getting all of it through one question. But clearly we are going to add components back to the Linux kernel on both IA-32 and IA-64 platforms. We'll work with Linus and everyone in order to make that available. That will take some time. And as I mentioned earlier, I don't know that over time you can have a single kernel -- in fact I know you can't -- that will scale, you know, the breadth of IT technology needs. So I think we're looking, in the Linux community, at having multiple kernels, so...
Q: Multiple Linux kernels? Or multiple UNIX kernels?
Love: Multiple Linux kernels as well, over time.
Q: Thank you.
Love: You bet.
SCO has NO effective case against either IBM, HP or anyone else.
The following was posted in various forms in reply to multipule Anti-Linux FUD articles at Zdnet/Cnet.
If the issue is the threat of lawsuits over intellectual property then corporate America and everyone else are actually in a better legal position using GPL'ed Linux than using Microsoft's products as a development platform.
Microsoft has a history of licensing third party code and patents in such a manner that still leaves developers exposed. Even going back to the LZH/GIF Unisys patents, http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/lzw/
"Microsoft Corporation obtained a license under the above Unisys LZW patents in September, 1996. Microsoft's license does NOT extend to software developers or third parties who use Microsoft toolkit, language, development or operating system products to provide GIF read/write and/or any other LZW capabilities in their own products (e.g., by way of DLLs and APIs)."
Microsoft also licensed database technology for Microsoft's SQL server from Timeline Inc, under similar license terms as did with Unisys. This license did not grant Microsoft the right to sublicense to third party developers to extend functionality, in some cases even restricting the use of visual basic. Unlike companies like Oracle Corporation and others, Microsoft chose a cheaper option for the license which left third party developers, users of Microsoft SQL Server,Office and other Microsoft products at risk of being sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc patents. Timeline Inc asked Microsoft to upgrade to a similar license used by Oracle, but Microsoft refused, so the whole issue went to court and in 2002, Timeline Inc won. http://www.timeline.com/021903PR.htm http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/29419.html
While SCO has yet to provide any publicly available substantial evidence in their case against IBM and Linux, Timeline Inc has already won a US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft in another contract dispute.
How many other cases exist where Microsoft has included third party technology in it products, but has also taken the cheaper licensing option and left developers and even users exposed to the threat of lawsuit? Due to the closed nature of the proprietary business model, how can third party developers even check?
Microsoft's products and platforms do not provide users and developers an absolute safe haven from the threat from lawsuits based on violations of intellectual property. Microsoft's EULA ( End User License Agreements ) provide the developer and end user with no protection against threat from current or future intellectual property lawsuits.
Since The SCO Group has knowingly sold and distributed the GPL licensed Linux kernel and other components, it must by the terms of the GPL license, provide all those who receive the code from them an implicit license to use any intellectual property, patents or trade secrets which SCO owns and is used within the GPL'ed source code. That implicit license to that SCO intellectual property is also granted to anybody who subsequently receives the GPL source. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
The GPL only grants the right, for reasons of intellectual property infringement or contractual obligations, to stop distributing the GPL'e binaries and source code if the conditions are imposed upon you by a third party. Since The SCO Group claims ownership the intellectual property in question, it must grant all subsequent recipients of the GPL licensed source code The SCO Group h
Kudos to Transmeta for hiring Linus in the first place ( even if they did transport him to the USA in reach of overlitigious bastards such as The SCO Group ) and supporting his work on Linux for so many years.
Firstly, yes, there are a few people who do read your site and greatly appreciate your efforts. As a paralegal I know that your webblog does not represent an offical legal opinion in itself, but your views are better qualfied than most and the references you track down are of great value.
Your correct about the solution, but : How can the offending code be removed if the offending source is not identifed?
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/411.html ... serves notice upon the infringer, not less than 48 hours before such fixation, identifying the work and the specific time and source of its first transmission, and declaring an intention to secure copyright in the work
Another http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material. What is reasonably sufficient time and information?
If the linux kernel is split up and distributed on a website/ftp site on a file by file basis, SCO would have to identify the individual offending file.
As for the liability of Linus and the kernel developers... http://www.pnpa.com/legal/handbook2/copyrights.htm When no notice is given on a work, there is a possibility that someone will believe the work is not subject to copyright. This is the case of the innocent infringer. The innocent infringer will have no liability for actual or statutory damages
Also, what about the downstream effects of the GPL implict licensing. SCO has sold and distributed under the terms of the GPL license. That covers everything GPL'ed up to and in including the kernel-2.4.19 . SCO have admitted that they knew about the "common" source months before they started the lawsuit, but kept selling and distributing openlinux. Does the former action imply implicit consent? Remember that both Caldera and SCO have been distributing GPL'ed source code for almost a decade - How could they deny that SCO and their lawyers don't understand the terms conditions?
For the current development kernel, it's currently still in beta development and is not being deployed in a commercial capacity. There is effectively no damage to SCO's Unix "Market-share" and SCO's disclosure and proof of "ownership" of the offending source code would allow Linus to remove it from the source repostory. The missing gaps would quickly be rewritten.
Since The SCO Group now admits that it does not own Novell's Unix patents, the rewrite becomes a much easier job.
SCO's evidence of origin and Function dictates form
What proof did SCO present for the origin of both fragments of source code?
What proof did SCO present to show the SCO code did not originally from old BSD,Linux or public domain publications?
Who put the SCO source into Linux? - Was put there by Old Novell/SCO/Caldera in the first place?
What proof did SCO provide to show that the person had access to SCO's Unix sources?
The latter question raises another issue. The similarity is just as likely to be due to both operating systems performing the same role. Form is often directed by the function it performs. Function and variable names are often dictated by the API and common terminology.
Both the current Linux and Unix kernel developers have attended the similar university courses and read the same publicly available documentation. The works of W. Richard Stevens are very influential as a reference toward modern Unix and Linux and have dictated the implentation of APIs and TCP/IP stacks in both.
SCO held another telephone conference today, but you had to be on time. I tried to call in later, when I was free, to hear the recording, but although the operator told me it had been recorded, it wasn't being made available. She suggested I contact SCO and ask to hear it. Meanwhile, someone who did listen posted on Slashdot as "mec" and he or she heard this question and answer:
[question #3] Stephen Shankland, CNET --
"Q: Copyright office does not have an assignment on file [for the Unix copyrights from Novell]. 'Is it your understanding that the copyrights have not been registered yet?' A: 'Stephen is correct... [if we need] we will change the assignment of copyright...' [we can do that at any time]."
If this is true, that they failed to register, it puts another interesting twist on this story. (Novell put a twist of its own, by posting a press release on its site saying that while the Amendment that SCO sent them seemed to support their claim "that ownership of certain copyrights for UNIX did transfer to SCO in 1996", Novell doesn't seem to have the amendment in its own files, and patents for sure didn't transfer.)
It's true you can register a copyright any time, but you can't sue for infringement until you have registered and you can't get certain damages for infringement that occured prior to registration: "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is
necessary for works of U. S. origin." Section 411 says it precisely like this:
" 411. Registration and infringement actions10
(a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the
author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection
(b), no action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work
shall be instituted until registration of the copyright claim has been made
in accordance with this title...."
You are limited as to remedies without registration, as Section 412 sets forth:
" 412. Registration as prerequisite to certain remedies for infringement11
In any action under this title, other than an action brought for a
violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a) or an action
instituted under section 411(b), no award of statutory damages or of
attorney'
( In which we must also ponder the question: What value is the SCO Group when it continued to sell and distribute the source code in question under the GPL? )
If you are concerned over the treat of lawsuits over intellectual
property then you are actually in a better legal position using
GPL'ed Linux than using Microsoft's products.
While SCO has yet to provide any publicly available substantial
evidence in their case against IBM and Linux, Timeline Inc has
already won a US
Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft in
another contract dispute.
Unlike companies like Oracle Corporation and others, Microsoft
chose a cheaper option when licensing Timeline Inc's Data base
technology. That license puts developers and users of Microsoft
SQL Server,Office and other Microsoft product at
risk
of being sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc
patents.
Microsoft's products do not provide users and developers an
absolute safe haven from the threat from lawsuits based on
violations of intellectual property. Microsoft's EULA provide the
developer and end user with no protection against threat from
current or future intellectual property lawsuits.
However, since the SCO Group has knowingly sold and distributed
the GPL licensed Linux kernel and other components,
it must by the
terms of the GPL license, provide all those who receive the
code from them an implicit license to use any intellectual
property, patents or trade secrets which SCO owns and is used by
the GPL'ed source code. That implicit license to that SCO
intellectual property is also granted to anybody who subsequently
receives the GPL source.
The GPL only grants the right, for reasons of intellectual
property infringement or contractual obligations, to stop
distributing the GPL'e binaries and source code if the
conditions are imposed upon you by a third party. Since SCO
claims ownership the intellectual property in question, it must
grant all subsequent recipients of the GPL licensed source code
SCO has distributed and any GPL'ed derivative, the same implicit
licence and right to SCO's intellectual property the code imposes
upon.
SCO has acknowledged deals with Suse and Lindows to distribute
SCO's intellectual property in GPL'ed Linux, but the GPL
license does not grant anyone or any organization the right to
append extra terms and conditions upon the recipients of the GPL
licensed source code.
It is very easy to effectively fold the current development
branches of the Linux kernel and any other GPL'ed code back into
SCO's distributed GPL'ed sources. This would grant the same
implicit license for the infringed SCO intellectual property to
the all the current development.
You are in a better legal position using the GPL'ed Linux platform
and other GPL'ed software, than you are using Microsoft's or any
other closed source software.
Slashdot Mirror
In response an unprecedented gathering of the free software/open source development leaders actually agreed on a single statement in reply
Hmmm,
As I have stated before about Microsoft's purchase of Connectix's Virtual Server technology
The Electronic Frontier Foundation are about to publish a paper criticizing a component of the "trusted computing" technology promoted by Microsoft, IBM and other technology companies, calling the feature a threat to computer users..What the Microsoft spin doctors do not mention is the continuing market share loss to Apache overall.
NZheretic Aka David Mohring.
Only when Sun copies Steve Ballmer's Anti-Linux FUD
Does Microsoft ( or any other proprietary software vendor ) truly indemnifies it's own customers? Not if Microsoft's current license agreements are any thing to go by.
In comparing the Microsoft EULA to the GPL, Microsoft's EULAs are pretty uniform when it come to exluding themselves from liability...
http://www.cyber.com.au/cyber/about/comparing_the_ gpl_to_eula.pdf
The Timeline Inc case bring up an important issue; while no vendor can expected to identify all potential patent violation when developing software, when the vendor does purchase and license technology from a third party, the vendor should insure that the end user/develop is not put at further risk.
Even Microsoft's May 27th changes which apply only to customers under enterprise licensing contracts, which Microsoft claims grants greater immunity, contains loop holes which greatly negate Microsoft's liability.
https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/contr actupdates.asp
https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/downloads/mba. doc
The new section 6 clause contain exceptions
Loophole #1
"(ii) code or materials provided by you as part of service deliverables"
This would effectively still indemnify Microsoft against most of the Timeline Inc patent claims, as it is the developer/end user's code ( even visual basic code ) which would be in violation of Timeline's patent claims.
Microsoft has a history of licensing third party code and patents in such a manner that still leaves developers and users exposed to IP threats. Even going back to the LZH/GIF Unisys patents,
http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/lzw/
Microsoft is able to 'get away' with getting these patents in exactly the same way Eolas was able to be granted it's plugin patent for browsers, dispite Apples HyperCard and LotusNotes had the same functionality -- by tying that patented functionality to a platform.
Where Eolas was able to get the plugin patent for browsers, Microsoft is quite able to get patents for existing functionality on it's .net platform -- even if the same functionality has been demonstrated on Java/Perl/Python/CORBA etc.
The US Patent Office is a over a year behind in it's proccessing of patent applications, new applications covering the .NET API for network and webapplications are just appearing.
GNOME distribution with Mono is DANGEROUS!
This leads to the same escrow agent model which is far to open to exploitation by The New American Corporate Soviet.
The latter link explains
The long term problem with IBM's model of the TCPA is exactly the same with that of clipper chip encryption, the owner of the PC does NOT control the attestation master keys. This leads to the same escrow agent model which is far to open to exploitation by The New American Corporate Soviet.
1995 Signs to Cairo
1996 Unearthing Cairo
The so call Longhorn WinFS directory is just another rencarnation of the Cairo object orientated file system.September 1, 2003 Eweek 'Longhorn' Rollout Slips
Microsoft have been attempting this type of functionality since 1991, over a decade. Meanwhile, one open source GNOME developer, with help from the other core GNOME developers, provides most of the features within months.: The New American Corporate Soviet
Loss of Control and Backdoors
Read Microsoft Aims for Protection--From Users
NGSCB + RIAA = NSA + KGB + CIA. ( R -> K )
From the Transcript of Internet Caucus Panel Discussion. Re: Administration's new encryption policy. Rep. Curt Weldon's statement
Read all of Curt Weldon's statement.Consider that as of 26 August 2003:, There are currently 22 unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft's Internet Explorer - many of the serous vulnerabilities Microsoft has not provide a fix to patch the hole in years!
Attestation Monopoly
Microsoft's NGSCB model for DRM content management grants Microsoft effective root digital certificate control over both software and content. It would be a monopoly even stronger than Microsoft's existing desktop dominance. Just as with Microsoft's proprietary file formats and protocols, the network effect would result in any non-dominate player or vendor facing too great a barrier to provide effective monopoly negating free-market competition.
Loss of Fair Use Rights and doctrine of First Sale
Microsoft's NGSCB DRM model also grants content providers far too much restrictive power. For example, in the USA and in most of the world, you are legally allowed to tape broadcast content for later replay ( timeshifting ), gathering evidence for making a complaint, or legitmate research. The DRM model can be used by content providers to circumvent these legal rights. Also if Microsoft or the Codec developer drops support for a format or even a particular digital key, all that content "protected" by that methord or key becomes unreadable.
The DRM model circumvents the Doctrine of First Sale, by side shifting content from being "goods" into a so-called service. When I purchase a DVD, I own that particular physical instance of that DVD and the right to view the content on it. I expect to be able to play that DVD in any DVD player I choose to, including the DVD drive in my Linux system. Also when I have finished viewing that DVD, I expect to be able to pass or even resell that DVD to any party I choose. I might even give that DVD to my local library, and I am legally entitled to do so. As DMCA protected CSS DVDs already limits what you can do with a DVD, Microsoft's plans f
http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/Tril
Dr. Stefan Hildemann claims to have had a chance to see SCO's code show without having to sign the NDA; he has posted his impressions (in German).& t=1716
Well, one of the core SCO developer responsible for the development of the SCO Groups current Unix Intel port, also contributed to the Linux kernel. Compare this post of Jun's including the commentshttp://forum.golem.de/phorum/read.php?f=44&i=1774
Thanks to Robert Taylor this English translation of the posting
http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/5312/2001/1/
To this actual part of the Linux 2.4 kernel
http://lxr.linux.no/source/kernel/sched.c?v=2.4.1
and consider the comment of Dr.Stefan Hildemann.
This raises more interesting questions. Since the SMP scheduler in question was specifically written directly for Linux kernel, and both Caldera/SCO employees only added patches, does it not seem more likely that if there is common source and comment then it is likely that the source in question was copied from GPL'ed Linux source to The SCO Groups own Unix?
Back in April 25, 1994, PC Magazine had an article announcing that Novell Inc was developing a Linux based desktop system for Windows, DOS, NetWare, and Unix applications.
From that project, a group of Novell alumni formed Caldera Systems International with the backing of Novell's founder, Ray Noorda.
The Canopy Group, which purchased major holding in Caldera, was also founded by Ray Noorda.
Today Caldera Systems International, trading under the name The SCO GROUP Inc, at the direction of executives at the Canopy Group Inc, is threating the same target Linux desktop market for using the same technology that Novell owned and sublicensed to the original SCO.
Java Vs C#
Java and C# = 239, C# = 736 OR 497 for C# alone, Java = 4596 OR 4357 for Java alone, Java Wins outright 4357 to 497.
In fact Java is more in demand than C++ (3081) or Visual Basic ( 2252 )
J2EE Vs .NET .NET = 23, .NET = 1392 or 1369 for .NET alone,
J2EE = 2120 or 2097 for J2EE alone,
J2EE wins by points 2097 to 1369.
J2EE AND
According to theory, .NET should be picking up the bulk of Visual Basic Developers...
.NET WITH Visual Basic,
Visual Basic AND J2EE AND .NET = 5,
Visual Basic AND .NET = 58 or 53 alone,
Visual Basic AND J2EE = 168 or 163 for J2EE alone,
J2EE wins by points 163 to 53.
J2EE With Visual Basic Vs
In comparison to the number of Visual Basic based jobs, there is very little demand for the shift towards the backward incompatable Visual Basic.NET.
According to theory, C# should be picking up the bulk of Visual Basic Developers...
Java With Visual Basic Vs C# WITH Visual Basic
Visual Basic AND Java AND C# = 65, Visual Basic AND C# = 250 or 185 alone, Visual Basic AND Java = 696 or 534 alone, Java wins by points 534 to 185.
According to theory, C# should be picking up the bulk of the C++ developers...
Java With C++ Vs C# WITH C++
C++ AND Java AND C# = 149, C++ AND C# = 311 or 162 alone, C++ AND Java = 1242 or 1093 alone, Java wins outright 1093 to 162.
Read about The Trillian project and Ransom Love's LW 2000 Keynote speech.
The SCO group, and both Old SCO and Caldera before it, directly acknowledged and assisted IBM with the scalablity of Linux
In August 2000, just days after Caldera purchased the Old SCO server division, the then CEO of Caldera, Ransom Love, made a keynote speech at LinuxWorld 2000. A RealPlayer video stream of the event can be found at DrDobbs Journal's Technetcast
In the question and answer session at the end of the keynote, Love was asked about the possible conflict over Monterey and Linux IA-64
A mp3 capture of the following transcribed portion
I am not a lawyer, but even I can see that The SCO Group has put itself into an intractable situation, any judge will listen to evidence from the above and laugh the SCO group out of court.It's about time to reexamine the recent claims of The SCO group and call in the lawyers and maybe the authorities
In August 2000, just days after Caldera purchased the Old SCO server division, the then CEO of Caldera, Ransom Love, made a keynote speech at LinuxWorld 2000. A RealPlayer video stream of the event can be found at DrDobbs Journal's Technetcast
In the question and answer session at the end of the keynote, Love was asked about the possible conflict over Monterey and Linux AI-64
A mp3 capture of the following transcribed portion
SCO has NO effective case against either IBM, HP or anyone else.
If the issue is the threat of lawsuits over intellectual property then corporate America and everyone else are actually in a better legal position using GPL'ed Linux than using Microsoft's products as a development platform.
Microsoft has a history of licensing third party code and patents in such a manner that still leaves developers exposed. Even going back to the LZH/GIF Unisys patents,
http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/lzw/
"Microsoft Corporation obtained a license under the above Unisys LZW patents in September, 1996. Microsoft's license does NOT extend to software developers or third parties who use Microsoft toolkit, language, development or operating system products to provide GIF read/write and/or any other LZW capabilities in their own products (e.g., by way of DLLs and APIs)."
Microsoft also licensed database technology for Microsoft's SQL server from Timeline Inc, under similar license terms as did with Unisys. This license did not grant Microsoft the right to sublicense to third party developers to extend functionality, in some cases even restricting the use of visual basic. Unlike companies like Oracle Corporation and others, Microsoft chose a cheaper option for the license which left third party developers, users of Microsoft SQL Server,Office and other Microsoft products at risk of being sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc patents. Timeline Inc asked Microsoft to upgrade to a similar license used by Oracle, but Microsoft refused, so the whole issue went to court and in 2002, Timeline Inc won.
http://www.timeline.com/021903PR.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/29419.html
While SCO has yet to provide any publicly available substantial evidence in their case against IBM and Linux, Timeline Inc has already won a US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft in another contract dispute.
How many other cases exist where Microsoft has included third party technology in it products, but has also taken the cheaper licensing option and left developers and even users exposed to the threat of lawsuit? Due to the closed nature of the proprietary business model, how can third party developers even check?
Microsoft's products and platforms do not provide users and developers an absolute safe haven from the threat from lawsuits based on violations of intellectual property. Microsoft's EULA ( End User License Agreements ) provide the developer and end user with no protection against threat from current or future intellectual property lawsuits.
The Gnu General Public License (GPL) and Gnu Library General Public License (LGPL) are based on years of solid legal research.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
Since The SCO Group has knowingly sold and distributed the GPL licensed Linux kernel and other components, it must by the terms of the GPL license, provide all those who receive the code from them an implicit license to use any intellectual property, patents or trade secrets which SCO owns and is used within the GPL'ed source code. That implicit license to that SCO intellectual property is also granted to anybody who subsequently receives the GPL source.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
The GPL only grants the right, for reasons of intellectual property infringement or contractual obligations, to stop distributing the GPL'e binaries and source code if the conditions are imposed upon you by a third party. Since The SCO Group claims ownership the intellectual property in question, it must grant all subsequent recipients of the GPL licensed source code The SCO Group h
Kudos to Transmeta for hiring Linus in the first place ( even if they did transport him to the USA in reach of overlitigious bastards such as The SCO Group ) and supporting his work on Linux for so many years.
Your correct about the solution, but : How can the offending code be removed if the offending source is not identifed?
Thanks to martin_lvnv yahoo posts....
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/411.html
... serves notice upon the infringer, not less than 48 hours before such fixation, identifying the work and the specific time and source of its first transmission, and declaring an intention to secure copyright in the work
Another http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html
Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
What is reasonably sufficient time and information?
If the linux kernel is split up and distributed on a website/ftp site on a file by file basis, SCO would have to identify the individual offending file.
As for the liability of Linus and the kernel developers...m
http://www.pnpa.com/legal/handbook2/copyrights.ht
When no notice is given on a work, there is a possibility that someone will believe the work is not subject to copyright. This is the case of the innocent infringer. The innocent infringer will have no liability for actual or statutory damages
Also, what about the downstream effects of the GPL implict licensing. SCO has sold and distributed under the terms of the GPL license. That covers everything GPL'ed up to and in including the kernel-2.4.19 . SCO have admitted that they knew about the "common" source months before they started the lawsuit, but kept selling and distributing openlinux. Does the former action imply implicit consent? Remember that both Caldera and SCO have been distributing GPL'ed source code for almost a decade - How could they deny that SCO and their lawyers don't understand the terms conditions?
For the current development kernel, it's currently still in beta development and is not being deployed in a commercial capacity. There is effectively no damage to SCO's Unix "Market-share" and SCO's disclosure and proof of "ownership" of the offending source code would allow Linus to remove it from the source repostory. The missing gaps would quickly be rewritten.
Since The SCO Group now admits that it does not own Novell's Unix patents, the rewrite becomes a much easier job.
What proof did SCO present for the origin of both fragments of source code?
What proof did SCO present to show the SCO code did not originally from old BSD,Linux or public domain publications?
Who put the SCO source into Linux? - Was put there by Old Novell/SCO/Caldera in the first place?
What proof did SCO provide to show that the person had access to SCO's Unix sources?
The latter question raises another issue. The similarity is just as likely to be due to both operating systems performing the same role. Form is often directed by the function it performs. Function and variable names are often dictated by the API and common terminology.
Both the current Linux and Unix kernel developers have attended the similar university courses and read the same publicly available documentation. The works of W. Richard Stevens are very influential as a reference toward modern Unix and Linux and have dictated the implentation of APIs and TCP/IP stacks in both.
Copyright WHAT Copyright
From Groklaw.
If you are concerned over the treat of lawsuits over intellectual property then you are actually in a better legal position using GPL'ed Linux than using Microsoft's products.
While SCO has yet to provide any publicly available substantial evidence in their case against IBM and Linux, Timeline Inc has already won a US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft in another contract dispute.
Unlike companies like Oracle Corporation and others, Microsoft chose a cheaper option when licensing Timeline Inc's Data base technology. That license puts developers and users of Microsoft SQL Server,Office and other Microsoft product at risk of being sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc patents.
Microsoft's products do not provide users and developers an absolute safe haven from the threat from lawsuits based on violations of intellectual property. Microsoft's EULA provide the developer and end user with no protection against threat from current or future intellectual property lawsuits.
However, since the SCO Group has knowingly sold and distributed the GPL licensed Linux kernel and other components, it must by the terms of the GPL license, provide all those who receive the code from them an implicit license to use any intellectual property, patents or trade secrets which SCO owns and is used by the GPL'ed source code. That implicit license to that SCO intellectual property is also granted to anybody who subsequently receives the GPL source.
The GPL only grants the right, for reasons of intellectual property infringement or contractual obligations, to stop distributing the GPL'e binaries and source code if the conditions are imposed upon you by a third party. Since SCO claims ownership the intellectual property in question, it must grant all subsequent recipients of the GPL licensed source code SCO has distributed and any GPL'ed derivative, the same implicit licence and right to SCO's intellectual property the code imposes upon.
SCO has acknowledged deals with Suse and Lindows to distribute SCO's intellectual property in GPL'ed Linux, but the GPL license does not grant anyone or any organization the right to append extra terms and conditions upon the recipients of the GPL licensed source code.
It is very easy to effectively fold the current development branches of the Linux kernel and any other GPL'ed code back into SCO's distributed GPL'ed sources. This would grant the same implicit license for the infringed SCO intellectual property to the all the current development.
You are in a better legal position using the GPL'ed Linux platform and other GPL'ed software, than you are using Microsoft's or any other closed source software.