SCO To Show Copied Code 646
A number of people have written this morning in regards to the latest update in the ongoing SCO dropping Linux, with word from LinuxJournal that SCO has broadened the implications of code copying. A number of analyst groups have come out, however, saying that it's fine to keep moving ahead with Linux adoption - and there's an interesting interview with SCO's General Manager of SCOSource.
SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collect (Score:3, Interesting)
Not telling the world what the code is, is a legal blunder of the first order. This means that they have unclean hands, as they are supposed to try and mitigate the damage in order to receive compensation.
You can't knowlingly add to the damage and then ask for compensation incl Punitive damages based on same. Any suit against Linux vendor in the future can site this as an Affirmative Defense" and pretty much get the suit tossed on that account alone
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:5, Interesting)
They distribute(ed) a version of Linux under the GPL, a licence that legally permits people to copy and branch the code assuming they put it under the GPL. Unfortunately for SCO, whether or not they knew they were distributing their own IP under the GPL or not is irrelevant to the rather compelling argument that they did put their IP under the GPL, and now that they continued to distribute linux after they found the alleged infringements means that no court would declare that licence invalid.
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:5, Interesting)
If anyone argues this, we lose in a bigger way. MS can then say "see, I told you so! GPL caused SCO to lose their IP!!!!".
It would benefit us greatly as a community if no company makes this argument in defense.
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:5, Insightful)
You could view this as only peripherally about the terms of the GPL and more about SCO being careless - if they'd used the BSD, Artistic, or Moz licenses the effect on any proprietary IP would be the same.
Due diligence shouldn't apply (Score:4, Interesting)
Due diligence doesn't really apply to patents, I don't believe. Does with trademark, which doesn't apply here.
If due diligence did apply (and you could argue it should), then the whole Rambus fiasco wouldn't have happened
Re:Due diligence shouldn't apply (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure what it is, if it isn't a kite, but it seems nearest to being a trade secret issue, in which case I would expect due dilligence to be applicable. It might be time to stop speculating until there are more data? On the other hand this is
Diligence *really* isn't relevant here (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, it is. They have patents, which they plan to enforce, namely with regard to multi-processor stuff. They also have copyright. Both of these supercede "trade secrets," and neither can be revoked due to any presence or lack of "due diligence."
If you have a source that suggests copyright (NOT TRADEMARKS) can be revoked by lack of due diligence, I'd definitely like to see it, because everything I've seen states clearly that copyrights are protected for Life+70. Otherwise, do musicians who allow their songs to be traded on Napster-clones lose copyright? No.
Any due diligence issues might play out in a penalty phase, but in terms of guilt and innocence, it's irrelevant.
There have been a jillion articles on this thing, including with SCO officials, so it's not a matter of more data. They claim that both patents and copyrights have been violated. Patents supposedly got leaked through IBM's AIX collaboration with SCO. Copyrights supposedly did because they claim that a lot of pre-IBM linux developers were privy to unix code that they were NDA'd from using elsewhere.
That's where it currently stands. Much of this was in the articles attached to this discussion, which you might have considered reading first.
Re:Losing focus (Score:3, Insightful)
This cuts both ways. SCO distributed it's disputed IP under the GPL after they publicly claimed that Linux had been contaminated. Despite their clear concerns, they chose to distribute their IP under a "viral license".
This is no different than if SCO had made their work public domain by mistake.
Their prior lack of due diligence does not allow them to be an "indian giver".
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that is a moot point. Whatever comes from this, open source will lose, whether SCO wins ("see, linux will lose you money") or loses ("see, your IP is at stake"). I think the second is less damaging because it's simply because of SCO's behaviour, and that can be shown.
The real sting in here is that while the code may well be GPL, the process and ideas it implements may very well, and probably are, still protected by patent laws. It's the same as with LZH compression: the algorithm is proprietary, even when there's GPL-ed code that implements it.
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:5, Interesting)
Jeroen
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the owner of this ip (most unix patents will probably be outdated anyhow) has been distributing it under the gpl, and thus giving up al rights to enforce their patents. The LZH case was different, the owner of the ip never gave permission to use it in gpl programs, and thus the person who first distributed it under the gpl (not those persons who distributed it further) would be liable.
This isn't a Patent case, SCO is suing on Copyright Infringement and Trade Secret grounds. The rules are completely different.
Distributing under the GPL does not touch their copyrights over their own code. SCO still has copyright on any code they wrote that they didn't assign copyright to anyone else (eg. their extensions to Unix System V). They also still have copyright on any code that had copyright assigned to them that they didn't assign to anyone else (eg. the Xenix and Unix System V codebases). These copyrights aren't going anywhere for a while, but I seriously doubt that they have the relationship to the Linux code that SCO claims.
My understanding of Trade Secret law, on the other hand, tells me that distributing under the GPL completely destroys any Trade Secret case they may have. In order to claim that something is a Trade Secret, you need to maintain dilligence in keeping other people from finding out your information. Distribution under anything but a NDA strikes me as incompatible with a Trade Secret. Distributing your own Trade Secrets under the GPL is likely to get a judge to laugh at you.
I am not a lawyer. The above should not be considered legal advice. Mashed potatos can be your friend
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:3, Informative)
This is not entirely true. The original copyright holder of a GPLed work can do something no other distributor of that code can do. The owner can still fork the code under any license he chooses. He can also legally prevent anybody else from releasing derived works under anything but the GPL. This is a major basis of TrollTech's current busine
GPL *LICENSES* copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of it this way: Copyright is the house. GPL is a door into the house.
By publishing copyrighted work under the GPL that means that you give people to come in and do whatever they want to the house within the boundaries of the license. You still own the original house and can build another door into it that has less abilities.
You cannot, however, close the original GPL door.
You could build an extension onto the house that doesn't use any of the originally GPL'd portions and keep access to that extension away from the GPL door, but you can't close off the original parts of the house.
Trade Secrets are even trickier. You need to protect trade secrets. If you fail to protect them and lose them then they're gone. If you do take reasonable measures to protect them and they're stolen illegally then you can prosecute. (Look at that DirecTV suit where the law clerk photocopied the documents.)
So, the argument can be made that by SCO/Caldera's act of distributing Linux they inadvertenly GPL'd any and all IP that they may have included in the work. The argument can also be made that the original person who published the work under the GPL didn't have the right to do that. The problem is that SCO is a publisher too.
Personally I think we should just get ourselves back to the easy questions like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?"
Re:GPL *LICENSES* copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
You cannot, however, close the original GPL door.
The analogy doesn't quite hold, you can close the door all you want... that is, you can scrub the code of all contributions for which you don't hold the copyright and then stop distributing it under the GPL... but...
...that won't stop your obligations when somebody comes back to you with an old GPL'd copy of your program and demands the source code of that version.
Wasn't Sourceforge GPL? (They may have been BSD'd I could be mistaken.)
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a trade secred [sic] law????
As far I understood the trade secred protecty you in one way, for an undefined time. It's by keeping it a secred and how long you can keep it secret, thats all folks! (As far I have understood)
Yes. I can't speak for other countries, but here in the United States most if not all states have some form of Trade Secret law. Most of them (including Utah, where the SCO suit was filed) have one based on the UTSA, a "Unified" law so that that there is minimal confusion in what the law is when you go from one state to the other.
These laws essentially boil down to: if you have a piece of information that is important to your business, and you take reasonable measures to keep that information secret, then you get the following protections for your secret:
The problem of counting on Trade Secret law is what I described earlier, once it's no longer secret, it's no longer protected.
My theory on why SCO brought up the presence of Trade Secrets in this case is not stupidity (they have to know that they are unlikely to win a Trade Secret case here), but more because of Protection 3, above. By invoking Trade Secret law, SCO can play their cards close to their chest.
They're probably hoping to get through the lawsuit without publically disclosing which code they allege infringes on their copyrights. This would prevent Linux supporters from comparing notes and filing briefings telling the court how full of it SCO is. Keeping the particulars of the case out of the public eye can only help SCO and only hurt IBM, so I assume that IBM is going to push for the case to be as open to the public as they can get away with. Since keeping the particulars hidden can also hurt Linux (nobody can remove the alleged threat until they find out what it is), I hope IBM succeeds on this point.
I am not a lawyer. The above is not legal advice. If you have a trade secret to protect, I recommend you consult both a lawyer and an experienced security professional.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:3, Informative)
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? Smart people understand that progress of mankind is not and cannot be property of individuals or small groups; it belongs to mankind as a whole. The entire notion of intellectual property is misplaced here. Mankind is discovering how to make computers a useful universal too and how to build an Internet out of all those computers. Linux is part of that ongoing discovery. What could it be that gives a small group of people the right to own progress?
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that they didn't put their IP under GPL in the first place, but (allegedly) someone else did without SCO knowing about it. Time is important here.
Re:Failure to mitigate own damages (Score:5, Interesting)
What *is* a failure to mitigate their damage is the fact that they sold their OWN version Linux along with a version of the kernel that THEY THEMSELVES patched. While I'm a Gentoo user now, my second distro was Caldera OpenLinux (my first distro was Slackware 3.5). Caldera OpenLinux had a graphical boot feature which required a specially-patched kernel. They wrote the graphical boot system and the patches to the kernel, so even if there IS SCO code in the kernel (which there isn't), it's not like they didn't know about it.
Re:Failure to mitigate own damages (Score:4, Informative)
And the dumb thing is that they were doing this at the same time they say they were investigating possible code copying -- for the better part of the past year (if my memory is clear of what was in previous accounts). It would seem to me that as soon as someone at SCO thought they should start looking at possible copyright infringement that they would have ceased any further participation in Linux at that time. Not a year later.
Either there's a serious communications problem at SCO or we have a possible explanation as to why Boies's (sp?) law firm was brought in, i.e., their internal legal department doesn't know their elbow from a hole in the ground (I know what I want to say here but I'm trying to keep this as civil as possible).
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:4, Informative)
The Complainant (SCO) is not required to publish the code in question. If such were the case, then trade secrets would be completely undermined by the judicial system. The time for disclosing the alleged infringing code is at trial, where the code can be kept under seal from the public, if necessary.
"Not telling the world what the code is, is a legal blunder of the first order. This means that they have unclean hands, as they are supposed to try and mitigate the damage in order to receive compensation."
SCO is not adding to the damages. Mitigation entails stopping damages that are under your control to stop. How is it that you propose SCO can stop IBM or others from distributing software while the suit is being pursued?
"You can't knowlingly add to the damage and then ask for compensation incl Punitive damages based on same. Any suit against Linux vendor in the future can site this as an Affirmative Defense" and pretty much get the suit tossed on that account alone"
Even if SCO were to lose this case, a futher defendant would not "site" it as an Affirmative Defense, but rather as a precedential case. And, being a breach of contract case, the precedential value would be limited for a future defendant.
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting comment, but this only holds for use of trade secrets in proprietary code. SCO claims that the code in question has entered Linux, an open source operating system. So any trade secrets they claim with their code are already in the public. So what's the point with not telling anyone what that code is? Once going to trial, it is inevitable that it is found out what code it is: if they win the case, the code needs to be removed from the linux kernel. No matter how many non-disclosure agreements are signed for this operation, someone will find out that some code in the kernel has been removed, when/where and by whom. If they lose the case, the code was apparently not illigally there in the first place.
So if it's established that the trade secret argument is vacuous in this case, the stuff with mitigating damages comes into play again. If they told what code they are concerned about, it would have been removed from the kernel quite promptly, I'm sure. I would guess the overall sentiment of the kernel coders would be something like: "we do not need no stinking SCO code". Once out of the kernel, the distributors would probably mirror the changes and make sure they would cease to distribute SCO's code.
So all in all, I fail to see the point in not disclosing the whereabouts of the code at all. If a judge would see it that way is an entirely different matter alltogether.
Ladies and Gentlemens... (Score:5, Funny)
void main() {
initkernel();
while(1)
{
[...kernel related stuff...]
}
}
Re:Ladies and Gentlemens... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Ladies and Gentlemens... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ladies and Gentlemens... (Score:5, Funny)
according to this suit i think the ideal is that the kernel would return some value to SCO ;)
IBM is not faulty (Score:5, Interesting)
so ? where does the leak (if any) come from except from SCO itself ?!
Re:IBM is not faulty (Score:3, Interesting)
When the supposedly infinging code is made known, then a million hands will be searching for it's origins, and they will go back, way back to see where it might have originated from.
Way back in late 60s and early seventies there were a lot of interchange of ideas/code between academics and industry about operating systems.
Some that come to mind were HP RTE (Real Time Executive)
There was th
Re:IBM is not faulty (Score:3, Insightful)
From SCO's letter:
"Commercial software is built by carefully selected and screened teams of programmers working to build proprietary, secure software. This process is designed to monitor the security and ownership of intellectual property rights associated with the code."
Yeah. Right. Not in any proprietary software design process I've ever seen anywhere. I dont think I've ever even heard of any 'check so our programmers dont use other peoples code' phase.
Frankly, the only kind of p
SCO stopped selling its own Linux too late (Score:3, Interesting)
interview indicates that SCO's right hand
doesn't seem to know what its left hand is doing.
And now... (Score:3, Funny)
Errrrr.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Errrrr.... (Score:4, Informative)
I believe it's the other way around (but I may be wrong - please correct/add). Caldera was originally a Linux-company which then bought the rights to Unix from SCO. About that time SCO changed it's name to something like tarantella or so and shortly after that Caldera also acquired the rights to the name SCO. Then they changed their name to SCO, stopped selling Linux (which used to be their core business) and the rest you know.
Re:Errrrr.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Errrrr.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you think that by just making a driver makes a programmer "know" the entire Linux code, what, a few million lines? What makes you think that same coder "knows" all the code owned by the company? Not to mention that the UNIX code was not actually written at SCO, so
Related quote (Score:4, Funny)
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by [the combination of malice and] stupidity"
The business plan of (Score:2, Interesting)
bully people into coughing up money
profit
needs to stop if there is "infringing" content i guess they have a right to sue... but perhaps that means the whole system of how intellectual property... particularly with respect to software.. need to change... what is going to happen if 2-3 yrs from now Amazon sells off part of its business including its 50 zillion patents... will we have to pay a royalty to use any interactive content on pages? This is just out of control.
Th
Re:The business plan of (Score:5, Informative)
1. Sue IBM.
2. Irritate the dinosaur.
3. Get bought by dinosaur.
The reason for this being that SCO is on the way down, down, down. The only way to rescue shareholder value at this point from total obliviion is a large injection of equity. Since no-one is likely to weigh in with the millions needed, the best way to obtain that equity is to replace it with those of a more stable stock.
i.e. get bought by IBM.
It's a high-risk, last-ditch strategy by a failing company.
- K
Re:The business plan of (Score:4, Funny)
That last should read:
3. Find yourself being scraped off the bottom of the dinosaurs foot.
catch-22? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now if a company releases proprietry code owned by it under GPL then anybody can use it! So it wont matter wether linux copies unix or whatever FUD they want to spread, all their linux code they released under GPL, so this will hardly stand in court.
On the other hand, this could be an acid test for GPL, coz if commercial Linux vendors prove that the above said code which is supposedly copied was actually released by SCO itlelf under GPL, the whole case will fall flat.
Code was relased before SCO was bought (Score:2)
If caldera didnt own the IP they they wernt legally allowed to release it under GPL, and they didnt have ownership in the beginning..
Re:Code was relased before SCO was bought (Score:3, Insightful)
When do they come after BSD and Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
Open Source is lies (Score:5, Funny)
Mohammed al-Sahaf (now SCO press spokesman)
SCO (Score:2, Funny)
Check out... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Check out... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Check out... (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the mailinglist archives [iu.edu] it was Larry McVoy who made that statement. Richard just replied to that message. And fixed the statement to read GNU/Linux :)
Re:Check out... (Score:3, Insightful)
Are they implying their own product is obsolete?
SCO's letter contains copyright violations (Score:3, Funny)
'commercial Linux user' [google.nl] is a phrase first commonly used by SGI;
'Unix-like operating system' [google.nl] has obviously been pinched from multiple sources; and
SCO's claim to 'Linux-related activies' [google.nl] is clearly not propietary.
This messages constitutes a warning to SCO to change the content of the above mentioned letter or face possible legal proceedings.
Re:SCO's letter contains copyright violations (Score:4, Interesting)
SCO has other problems... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCO has other problems... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's trying to say that if you relicense code you own once it's been GPL'ed, you loose all rights... That clause only applies to code you RECEIVE under the GPL, not code you PUT under the GPL.
BWP
No fear (Score:5, Funny)
Wouldn't you agree that your legal action is causing uncertainty in the Linux community and that this uncertainty is undermining the marketing efforts of UnitedLinux?
There is definitely uncertainty and doubt...
But no fear, it would seem. :-)
Cheers,
Ian
Re:No fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Continuing on a slightly more serious note, the only entity that is greatly served by slowing Linux's adoptation into the business world is, indeed, Microsoft. Are there any financial ties between Microsoft and SCO? I find it hard to believe that SCO is self-destructing just for the hell of it. I have not much trouble imagining Microsoft going through the ol' FUD routine.
Re:No fear (Score:4, Interesting)
I do hope that Microsoft is not behind this at all because it would be nice to see SCO run out of cash trying to fight this (and that's one problem they wouldn't need to worry about if they were a Microsoft puppet). It does seem like an unlikely conspiracy theory to me, but who knows.
Today's news conference (Score:5, Funny)
It is only too obvious the code infringement occurring in Linux. Torvalds' dogs are cutting their own throats before the walls of our Intellectual Property. Tonight they will burn in hell. The stolen code is as clear as the nose on my face.
reporter:
Sir, could we see some of this code?
C.S.:
I will only answer questions that deal in reality. The code is all over the place. Can't you see it yourself?
reporter:
But sir, since your code is hidden from the world, how do we know you didn't just take some Linux sources and just slap SCO source into it for the sake of the trial?
C.S:
Are you a fool? The open source pigs on slashdot would like you to believe that, but they are cying outside and waiting to receive bullets now. They will be killed shortly.
SCO To Show Copied Code? (Score:2)
SCO's Biggest Tantrum Yet (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd like to see some of this copied code, or hear about it, or hear anything except "the stole our unix". But thats All we have heard from SCO, they are yet to offer anything except them jumping up and down like a toddler with his first erection.
Anyways, this is more likely a stunt from SCO to get some attention, and possibly a parent company. Since SCO dosnt exactly have a bright futre ahead.
Perhaps when whatever crawled up their ass realises it can do better and crawls out this stunt will end
Re:SCO's Biggest Tantrum Yet (Score:4, Interesting)
We have the ability to withdraw or pull the AIX license on June 13, which should cause IBM to expedite this issue as well.
What does that mean? It means they brought the case so IBM would settle out of court beofre that date. Much wonga for SCO for doing nothing. They don't have to show the source code, they don't have t prove anything, IBM will cave in rather than lose the ability to sell AIX. The only problem is that doing this may leave the doors open for SCO to say 'see, we were right', and then sue whichever other Linux distributor they like.
Download your SCO Linux today! (Score:3, Funny)
I'd like to thank SCO for making the GPL distribution of Linux a high-throughput broadband affair!
-K
IBM's trustworthiness under test... (Score:3, Insightful)
a. Loyal to GNU/Linux for ever.
b. a mere hanger-on or passenger, if you will
c. going to slowly pull the rug from under Linux
IBM's recent alliance with MS et al in the Trustworthy Computing Alliance, I feel, casts more than a shadow of doubt, regarding it's true intentions. While it is apparently politically risky to openly side with Open Source, especially for an entity such as IBM, I believe they have stuck their necks out long enuff to retract now.
OTOH, IBM could play a helpless victim, settle with SCO for let's say 10 million (peanuts for them) and then all hell breaks loose for all the other players.
The ambivalence of IBM is frightening, to say the least.
Re:IBM's trustworthiness under test... (Score:3, Insightful)
Any time you find yourself in a battle, the more you posture, the more you undermine your position by exposing your weaknesses through your bravado. It is better to approach a battle quietly, and then destroy your opponent co
Re:IBM's trustworthiness under test... (Score:3, Insightful)
2) I don't interpret IBMs silence as ambivalence, but merely as looking for a good target. They aren't acting like they even feel threatened (though that *could* just be a poker face).
3) IBM is not a monolithic entity. To the extent that I evaluate them as such, I'm more impressed by whether they offer Linux on their workstations and portables than by their rhetoric.
4)
Who will they sue? (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides the code can be rewritten or removed fairly quickly, all that will happen in SCO will be less compatible with Linux. Considering SCO is pretty much a dead product (going by the opinions expressed here) it's suicide on their part.
What if the code is "Bubble Sort" or similar (Score:4, Interesting)
Does MS still own any of SCO? (Score:3, Interesting)
No, that was a different SCO (Score:3, Informative)
In 2000, Caldera bought the Unix part of SCO. [slashdot.org] Then SCO changed their name to something silly, [slashdot.org] and later Caldera changed their name to "The SCO Group". [slashdot.org]
History of SCO (Score:5, Funny)
It was at about this time that Calderuman began to study the Rings of Power, their history and the means of their making.
In year 31 of the Epoch, he was given the keys of OpenLinux, and took up his abode there. He continued his researches into Ring-Zero-lore, and the making of device drivers, and was accustomed to watch the stars from the pinnacle of the Tower. When the Council debated the Rings of Power, Calderuman claimed that his researches showed that the One Ring had been lost forever. It was later shown that he did not believe this, however, and was searching for it himself, having secretly rebelled against the Council.
He built an army of Lawyers and Orcs of his own within the ring of Isengard to challenge both the Wise and the forces of Mondred. In May of the 24th year, when he was ready to reveal himself, Calderuman set a trap for Gandalf, luring him to Orthanc. When Gandalf came, Calderuman revealed that he had made a Ring of his own, and that he intended to gain control of Linux , or at least prevent Gandalf from using it freely himself.
To be continued...
(Plagiarized of course - Google to find the source.)
He stole my thingy! (Score:3, Insightful)
Brat - He stole my thingy, and my other thing!
Adult - OK Timmy, I'll put on the blanket everything he has, and you can point out what he stole.
Brat - Won't! He stole my thingy!
Suse, for one would like to see it (Score:3, Informative)
Independent experts (Score:5, Insightful)
And will they even keep secret the names of these so-called experts? Of course I would never trust anyone who signs a non-disclosure agreement that prevents them from revealing the full truth about what they are examining. I probably would never trust those people about anything ever again. I know I would never sign such an agreement (but I don't have the political clout to be called an expert, so I'll let my 24 years of operating systems work (including source code internals), 19 years of C programming, 15 years of Unix experience, and 9 years of working on Linux, continue to do what it should be doing ... which doesn't include helping low-life underpaid executives recover their worthless stock options).
SCO Openforum (Score:5, Funny)
Stabbing friends in the back (Score:5, Interesting)
From the interview with Chris Sontag:
Q: SuSE feels protected against any legal action you may consider because of contracts with SCO and with UnitedLinux in which you are a member. Do SuSE and other Linux distributors including Red Hat have reason to be worried?
Regarding contracts we have with SuSE and UnitedLinux, I would unequivocally state that there is nothing in those contracts that provides them with any protection or shelter in the way they are characterizing this in the press. If I were them, I would not be making those kinds of statements.
Further, he goes on to say that this temper-tantrum is the result of IBM saying things SCO didn't like:
Basically, he [Steve Mills, IBM exec] said that IBM will exploit its expertise in AIX to bring Linux up to par with Unix and went on to say a lot of other things, like trying to help obliterate Unix. IBM is a licensee of Unix technology from SCO, originating back to contracts with AT&T Corp. So IBM's position became a big problem for us.
On behalf of Linux users and developers everywhere, fsck you, SCO.
Validity Of Code (Score:3, Interesting)
How do you verify that the code SCO provides is the same code that is in UnixWare? Do they disassemble shrink-wrapped version of UnixWare and compare it to the given code? Do they force them to re-compile a past release of UnixWare and compare the binaries.
I hope they validate that what SCO puts forwards.
Is SCO Still Partial owned by Microsoft? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now along comes a Linux, a product which Microsoft management calls "a cancer'. A product which is making major inroads in both the server and desktop market. Microsoft's strategies for eliminating this 'cancer' have included; denial, "name calling", question able / manufactured reports claiming lower cost of ownership and better maintain. I would think playing this logical card would help Microsoft derail the Linux market.
I would think a counter for this SCO/Microsoft move would be to sue both SCO and Microsoft for use of Linux/BSD code in a commercial product without display of copyrights and including source with the products. During the discover process, require SCO and Microsoft pay to have a third party code review of both of their products. The auditors would be chosen by the Linux/BSD world.
At that point, such a legal action would not only derail the SCO/Microsoft legal action, but would expose the depths to which both companies have and are working in collusion to dismantle the Linux movement.
Well that is my opinion, and I am sticking to it
Possible contamination source? (Score:5, Interesting)
I never did work for the Sequent/IBM group that was doing this work so I have no concrete basis for this speculation.
-michael
Mentally Contaminated (Score:3, Interesting)
I had the pleasure of seeing a lecture, A History of UNIX and UNIX Licenses, by Peter Salus [ddj.com] at Setec [setec.us] recently.
He was a witness in the 1993 lawsuit between UNIX System Laboratories versus BSDI. The prosecution accused him of being Mentally Contaiminated [berkeley.edu] for having viewed both sets of source code. Someone went out an made big red laquer buttons that said this and everyone who had seen source wore one to the trial. The contempt of court argument begins, and since it was a statement made by the prosecutor and not objected to by the court, then the buttons got to stay.
This case has some interesting similarities to the SCO accusations. SCO has much less of a leg to stand on.
I want a mentally contaiminated laquered button. If you've seen source code, then you are mentally contaminated. Maybe it's the start of a movement.
A Quick Discourse on Federal Procedure (Score:5, Informative)
SCO obviously wanted the case in state court. It very carefully pled no federal law claims such as copyright or patent. It pled only state law claims for unfair competetion, etc. The only reason to do this would be if SCO wanted this in state court.
IBM removed (that's the verb) the case to federal court - United States District Court for the District of Utah on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Not a thing SCO can do about it.
Why did SCO start the case in state court and why did IBM remove it? The state law claims of unfair competition, etc. are the same (the classic Erie decision still applies for all you budding 1Ls out there). The case will still physically remain in Utah.
IBM gets Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 26(a), the parties must disclose to each other, without even a formal request, the most relevant documents to their case. The disclosure must be done relatively quickly. I doubt there is a similar automatic disclosure in the Utah rules. In state court, SCO might have been able to drag the discovery process out for at least a few months. It could keep its source code hidden for a while. Under the federal rules, it cannot do that. By removing the case to federal court, IBM undercut a big hunk of SCO strategy - namely FUD.
Obviously, the most relevant documents to this case are the source code listings SCO alleges IBM stole. These must be produced to IBM and produced quickly. There willl probably be a protective order preventing the rest of us from seeing them, but IBM gets to see them very soon (like maybe this month).
If there was no theft of code by IBM, expect a quick resolution of the case. If there was theft from Project Monterey in violation of the SCO-IBM agreement, expect a slugfest over intent and the the measure of damages.
In addition, by not even knowing the corporate home of its adversary, SCO comes in looking foolish. How hard would it be to determine IBM is a New York corporation, not a Delaware corporation? Not hard at all. Take a look at any of its SEC filings. It was a stupid mistake by SCO and although it does not logically follow that the rest of its allegations are undermined, it does decrease credibility of SCO and its attorneys.
The interesting question (at least for entertainment value) is who subpoenas RMS first to testify.
SCO's mistake (Score:5, Informative)
"Finally. Somebody raised a possible problem that you yourselves distribute the infringing code under the GPL licence. Do you see that as a problem from your point of view?
No we do not, because you do not have an infringement issue when you are providing customers with products that have your intellectual property in them.
OK, but Linux has a kernel which isn't yours. Are you saying that there are changes to the kernel?
We have concerns and issues even with areas of the kernel.
So you are saying that you are happy distributing the kernel because the offending code belongs to you anyway, as I understand it?
Yes."
I.e. these guys don't have clue 1 what the GPL actually says. Unfortunately for them, failure to comprehend a license does not relieve you of your responsibilities under said license.
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2003
SCO should reveal the problem, we'll fix it (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead, SCO sends out their own Caldera customers warnings that they may be sued by SCO for using Linux. As a Unix instructor at a college, it will be years before I stop discussing the SCO case in class. Every student that comes out of my program will likely go out of their way to use operating systems that do not bear the SCO name.
SCO will not survive this. It is absurd for a company to piss off the community that it sees as it's customer base. Maybe they should spend more time fixing their antiquated and problem ridden SCO Unix OS rather than follow the RIAA's poor example.
The Linux community is underestimating SCO's case (Score:4, Interesting)
Serious money does not move like this unless the issues have been considered by good lawyers specialized in IP, plus technical advice, etc. Like most
SCO has buyout potential, not a case (Score:3, Interesting)
SCOBlows(tm) (Score:3, Funny)
So what? They plan on going after users for infringement? They are soooo fucking high...
Here's how that will play out:
1) SCO reveals which code bits are in the kernel.
2) Hours after their disclosure and possible judgement from the courts, hackers strip the offending code out and fork the kernel.
3) Minutes after the kernel is forked, the SCOBlows distro is available via ftp.
4) Users around the world rebuild their Linux boxes with non-offending OS running modified kernel.
5) SCO is fucked in the marketplace forever.
Of course they will have whatever money they can drain from IBM, SuSE, and Red Hat, but they will get squat from the users.
Fuck SCO.
Sounds like the Raelians (Score:3, Funny)
Plagiarism? (Score:3, Interesting)
Look, read any college or university report, or the New York Times for that matter, and you'll find that plagiarism is rife. Why is it so hard to believe that a few out of many thousands of Linux contributors might have taken a shortcut and misappropriated SCOs code?
Re:Plagiarism? (Score:3, Interesting)
There are two reasons the
Why can't you mount a SCO filesystem under linux? (Score:3, Informative)
Me-thinks SCO is full of SH*T and is going to fade into history. This is SCO's last stand, how tragic and sad.
Too bad I haven't finished migrating everything from SCO to Linux yet. I guess the clock it ticking and I better finish porting.
Re:All your base (Score:2, Insightful)
They distribute(ed) a version of Linux under the GPL, a licence that legally permits people to copy and branch the code assuming they put it under the GPL. Unfortunately for SCO, whether or not they knew they were distributing their own IP under the GPL or not is irrelevant to the rather compelling argument that they did put their IP under the GPL, and now that they continued to distribute linux after they found the allege
Re:All your base (Score:5, Informative)
Jeroen
Re:It has been announced by SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:CO Sued By SCO For IP Infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
funny post from an earlier discussion!
Hopefully, some other moderators will correct this
Re:CO Sued By SCO For IP Infringement (Score:3, Insightful)
At least in this one, he says it was posted before [slashdot.org]
crikey!
Re:SCO is just mentally unstable. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm glad that the three BSDs are not yet being bothered by these wonderful people.
Sources seem to suggest that the BSD's cannot be bothered by the SCO suit. Recall the legal fiasco between the USL and the BSD's in the early 90's. There is a terrific history in Marshall Kirk McKusick's chapter [oreilly.com] Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix: From AT&T-Owned to Freely Redistributable in O'Reilly's Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution.
The relevant paragraph:
The lawsuit settlement also stipulated that USL would not sue any organization using 4.4BSD-Lite as the base for their system. So, all the BSD groups that were doing releases at that time, BSDI, NetBSD, and FreeBSD, had to restart their code base with the 4.4BSD-Lite sources into which they then merged their enhancements and improvements. While this reintegration caused a short-term delay in the development of the various BSD systems, it was a blessing in disguise since it forced all the divergent groups to resynchronize with the three years of development that had occurred at the CSRG since the release of Networking Release 2.
Re:IMPORTANT: Please translate. Infringement Doc. (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically they say, that if you use SCO shared libraries with Linux, you have to license them. There is some hyperbole: So they try to create the impression, that there is no UNIX software available without the iBCS2 interface. No need for comment.
They also state, that most users using the iCBS2 kernel interface didn't respect the copyright of SCO shared libraries. Today there is no need for SCO shared libs anyway, because all Linux application vendors sell now native Linux binaries using the GNU libc shared libraries.
Nothing in the above document proves following statement from SCO's letter to Linux customers:
"We have evidence that portions of UNIX System V software code have been copied into Linux and that additional other portions of UNIX System V software code have been modified and copied into Linux, seemingly for the purposes of obfuscating their original source."
As a Linux customer I request from SCO:
(1) Show the evidence!
(2) Use clear language: What do you mean with Linux? Whole Distributions or the kernel.
(3) Publish the UNIX source code into the Public Domain to become a respected company once again.
Re:IMPORTANT: Please translate. Infringement Doc. (Score:3, Interesting)
He also wrote the syscall dispatch.
I then coded the first set of dispatches
which were little more than a 1:1 mapping of system call number to linux function by the same name.
This was in 1993.
Mike Jagis re-wote large chunks of this to support other non-SCO versions using the same syscalls.
Between Mike adding code and I merging it, it grew
to support most applications. I used perl's test set compiled on a SCO box to test that the iBCS code worked.
SCOX (Score:3, Interesting)
Last quarter they lost $725k on sales of $13.5M. They have about $5M cash, 340 employees, and a total stock value of about $40M.
Their revenues dropped 25% last quarter; if that continues they have only a year or two to live.