SCO Claims Linux Lifted ELF 675
fymidos writes "SCO has finally spoken. According to this linuxworld article, they claim that linux illegally uses the ELF binary format, the JFS filesystem, the init code and some more 'copyrighted Unix header and interfaces'. Finally SCO makes its move. The JFS part was expected of course, but according to the article, as far as the ELF format is concerned 'the Tool Interface Standard Committee (TISC) came up with a ELF 1.2 standard' and 'granted users a "non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license" to the stuff'. Oh, and of course 'both Novell and the old SCO - as well as Microsoft, IBM and Intel - were on the committee'."
More school yard fun (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not sure what this ends up meaning, legally:
SCO also claims "substantial similarity" between the Read-Copy-Update (RCU) routine in Linux 2.6.5 and Linux patches and SCO's copyrighted work, specifically SVR4.2 MP.
Similarity can be a slippery slope and SCO will slide as far down as need be, I suppose. And how about something that "may" be an infringement:
It also says the journaled file system (JFS) module from later versions of AIX, which SCO believes may derive from the JFS Unix, is in Linux 2.6
The folks at SCO probably look like adults, they are adult-sized and wear nice clothes. However, they act like elementary school kids arguing over a ball on the playground. Whoever yells loud enough, pushes hard enough, and hold their breath the longest wins.
Cheers!
Erick
Why wasn't this brought up in 1995? (Score:5, Insightful)
"In 1995, the year Novell sold Unix to the Santa Cruz Operation, an industry group calling itself the Tool Interface Standard Committee (TISC) came up with a ELF 1.2 standard and to popularize it and streamline PC software development granted users a "non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license" to the stuff, effectively putting it in the public domain, SCO says.
SCOsource chief Chris Sontag, the SCO VP in charge of the company's hate-inducing IP push, claims TISC, which folded immediately after the spec was published, exceeded its rights even though both Novell and the old SCO - as well as Microsoft, IBM and Intel - were on the committee."
So if SCO had a problem with ELF way back in 1995, why didn't they stop this back then? Obviously they had the choice to -- they clearly knew what TISC was doing. So why did it take SCO until 2003-2004 to point fingers at TISC?
I'm sorry, but this reeks of a last-ditch money-grab by SCO...even more than it did before. The release of ELF into the public domain happened nine years ago. IMHO, SCO should not be allowed to pull this into court because their business model is hurting now. Ridiculous.
Re:SCO??? (Score:1, Insightful)
Development dollars? (Score:5, Insightful)
The ELF bit is a weak arguement, but what can they do? They have a medium-sized pile of money and a dead-end product line. They can litigate, piss the money away trying to outdevelop both the open-source community and Microsoft in the OS space, or give up and find a new business to try and develop. Given the source of their pot of money, it makes sense to take their shot a the IBM lottery...
Of course, understanding their position doesn't make the decision a smart one.
Re:More school yard fun (Score:4, Insightful)
Your hypothesis is certainly one I wouldn't dismiss immediately, but do you know in what kind of timeframe the SVR4.2 release was made? i.e. Who is the cart and who is the horse, with respect to Linux & SCO.
Not the first time... (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO's business plan will be taught to MBA's (Score:1, Insightful)
A hundred years from now they'll be mentioning SCO in the same breath as Edsel, except Ford actually had other products to sell.
How the stink (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Claims on 2.6 ? It was but a gleam in Linus' ey (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course they have to file something (Score:5, Insightful)
(Being below $5 is a bad thing(tm), because many mutual funds cannot own stocks priced that low. Also since one cannot easily sell short a stock on Nasdaq priced below $5, it dries up the pool of short-sellers to be squeezed with price manipulations)
Re:More school yard fun (Score:1, Insightful)
The same will probably happen to SCO.
Re:More school yard fun (Score:2, Insightful)
I suspect what SCO's really hoping for is that somewhere along the line they'll say "ah hah! You have no idea where this snippet of code came from except for some line in the CREDITS file" and then magical justice fairies will award them billions in the ensuing confusion.
But nonetheless, this really is about copyright, not patents.
Re:More school yard fun (Score:3, Insightful)
I call FUD on you. He said they didn't apply to the people at GITMO, he NEVER said they were invalid. He also said the the UN is at risk of becoming irrelevent, which some would argue is a bit late. He parses his words carefully, and I wish people would quit misinterpreting them intentionally. There is plenty I disagree with Bush on, but misquoting the facts isn't benefiting anyone.
If you are going to bash Bush, at least get the facts straight lest you lend no credibility to yourself, and all anyone could conclude is that FUD is your goal.
The mainstream press is buying SCO's claims (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a look at today's CNN.com article [cnn.com], in which the reporter says:
"The communal aspects of open source can lead to thorny legal questions, particularly when a company claims its proprietary code has seeped into a project. Because developers typically don't offer warranties, end users could be held liable for infringements."
Wow. It's like saying that all code under the GPL is held to a legal standard that's as harsh as
Sad. And probably not fixable.
Re:More school yard fun (Score:5, Insightful)
System V Release 4 dates from 1991, according to th copyright statement in my manuals. That makes it older than Linux, though not by much. This is irrelevant anyway because ELF is a published standard with an open license, and if it should not have been so published that is an issue between SCO and the people who licensed it, i.e. themselves.
Re:Now this gets entertaining (Score:5, Insightful)
You can not, must not cave in to buy a company like this because it sets precedent for the creation of a million more just like them that will create noise and/or sue for things they don't have ownership for nor can prove there is damage being done.
You must see this out to the end, either being the annihilation of the barratrous company or the squashing of the lawsuit by an informed judicial process. You must send a message to all other wannabes that this type of crap will not be tolerated and that doing so will result in the destruction of their companies, their reputations, and their personal viability.
Re:More school yard fun (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand, but that breaks down even worse in SCO's favor. The litmus test is this:
1. Is the code EXACTLY the same?
2. Can SCO prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the code was explicitly copied, was disguised, did not diverge and was not re-implemented.
3. Can SCO show a trade secret that was stolen?
We pretty much know that #1 is false and that #2 is damn near impossible to prove. #3 is useless to them because TISC revealed the secret. They can sue TISC for that (if they have a leg to stand on), but they can't sue anyone else. Thus SCO is still performing barratry and they know it.
Not even close.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, they're the same, except that the 'little company' didn't exist when the standard was written, don't have clear title to the format, waited *NINE YEARS* to bring it up, and doesn't have a patent, and thinks that this is a *copyright* issue.
But yeah, except for all those differences, it's totally the same.
Re:Development dollars? (Score:3, Insightful)
An immoral person might go ahead and steal.
The Copyright Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
If you write a book, it's unlikely that somebody's going to excerpt part of your book for their own use. It's even more unlikely that the excerpt they do make will get used by somebody else in their book. This is a standard practice in software.
Linux uses Elf. SCO claims that the committee that opened up that standard didn't have the authority to do so. Well, it's now years later, and there are countless works derived off of that original standard, and now SCO wants to undo it.
Basically this has the effect of destroying copyright in software. How can anybody feel legally safe using any software product at any time when the history of every piece of code isn't out there for our perusal? How many times do we here of code that's out there, gets implemented countless times, and then somebody comes along and claims patent or copyright on some ancestor. The GIF patents are a perfect example of this.
I'm aware of no good solution to this problem. Every year, more code is written like this, and more copyright issues and patent issues arise. This will lead to legal fights, and overall increase the cost of developing software exponentially over time. Keep in mind that the code were dealing with don't date back much further than 1970, so it's only going to get worse.
Re:Development dollars? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we must be missing something here. I understand your logic, but if you only have $5, you don't go buy a slingshot and take on a Kodiac bear, unless your goal isn't to win to begin with.
They can't really be expecting to make money licensing Linux. They can't expect to win against the other litigants, since even they know all the other judges want to wait until the IBM case is settled before proceeding. They may not have known this before it all started, but they have to know it now. Its as if:
1. Sue everyone
2. ????
3. Profit!
And they REALLY DONT KNOW what step 2 is, so they are trying a little of everything. As hard as I look, I just can't believe that they really think they can win, so it begs the questions: What is the *real* motivation?
Microsoft? Did you read the article about how MS was going to go after open source the other day? (the HP internal docs) I am still waiting for MS to let SCO completely self destruct, then buy their "IP" at a bargain, to hold a cloud over open source. Its like getting your buddy hooked on crack, just so you can buy his stereo cheap.
Re:More school yard fun (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More school yard fun (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:More school yard fun (Score:3, Insightful)
The UN has been irrelevant for a hell of a lot longer than that and for much more important reasons.
Heck, just the fact that they let countries with non-representative governments even participate, IMHO, makes a completely joke of the whole thing.
Broderick affidavit (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More school yard fun (Score:2, Insightful)
The UN inspectors were not kicked out. They were told to leave by the US because the US was about to unleash holy hell on Iraq.
Then they proved their irrelevance when the U.S. invaded Iraq.
What was the UN to do? declare war on the US to prove they are relevant?
The only entity making the UN irrelevant is the United States everytime they make a double standard.
I'm an American living in Europe, so between my parents and the locals here, I get to hear both sides of the story.
One of the biggest concerns was when the US went against the UN. That was a major mistake in the eyes of the world.
The UN wasn't denying that there were WMD's in Iraq. All the UN wanted was more time to be absolutely sure that the supposed WMD reports about Iraq were accurate (which now we all know they weren't).
The UN didn't make any mistakes here. Why was Bush in such a hurry? The only answer I can think of here is because election was just around the corner.
Re:Can we have some details on the JSF (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, it's a load of BS.
Re:The Copyright Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is why copyright in software should be abolished and patents should be used instead. (Ducks behind heat-absorbent shield.) No, really; there are some actual benefits to this.
Patents expire. (Copyrights seem to be going on forever.)
Modern software is far more like the interlocking gears of a machine than like the mystic gestalt of a painting.
Copyright cares about where code came from (which is a pain). Patent only cares about what code does.
Copyrights are automatic, but most stuff that gets invented is never patented.
Every piece of code written before 1984 would instantly be public domain.
Re:More school yard fun (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Copyright Problem (Score:3, Insightful)
It's actually pretty easy - apply the idea / expression dichotomy, already clearly established in other areas of copyright law, to code. Distributing line-for-line copies of SCO's ELF implementation, which is their expression of an idea, is and should be illegal. But that's not what they're saying we did; they're saying they own the standard, they own the idea. Copyright law doesn't allow you to own an idea. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be educated, anyone who files suit with this misconception needs to fail spectacularly, and any law that doesn't make this crystal clear needs to be rewritten. Copyright law doesn't allow you to own an idea.
Re:Time to move to Mach-o (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The mainstream press is buying SCO's claims (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More school yard fun (Score:5, Insightful)
MovOn.org never made the claim, two anti-bush ads uploaded to a weblog/competition on moveon made the comparison and they were deleted as soon as moveon were told about them. Its a bit like saying that Slashdot is pro-goatsex.
The tenuous nature of the claim has not stopped the Bush campaign making an ad that intercuts shots of Kerry with shots of Hitler taken from the deleted contributions.
Clearly SCO are learning nothing from the Bush administration, if you substitute Bush administration for SCO and Bin Laden for Linux what you would get is something like:
Act One: Bin Linux initiates hostilities against SCO, SCO retaliates with massive lawsuit, then after a couple of months gets bored. Daryl McBride survives assasination attempt by a rogue pretzel.
Act Two: SCO gets bored with Bin Linux, decides that emacs is a copy of emacs, threatens to sue unless RMS releases sauce code.
Act Three: Despite protestations from RMS that he has already released the sauce code for emacs and the presence of code inspectors SCO applies for court injunction, RMS is thrown in jail.
Act Four: SCO hires company run by Daryl's brother to maintain the source code, company hires a hundred fresh out of college students, then bills SCO $5,000 per day each for their services.
Act Five: Report comes out stating that the grounds for the injuction were lies, SCO argues that the real Bin Linux threat comes from Iran.
Fact is, if SCO was learning from the Bush administration everything they did would be a complete incompetent Cheney-up from start to finish.
Re:More school yard fun (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this is stupidly idealistic, but according to the patent office, ideas are explicity not patentable, only specific mechanisms/implementations. That the patent office regularly rubberstamps patents on things which are really no more than ideas is just the patent office's usual level of competance.
You couldn't patent the idea of having a door only open for certain people, but you could patent various ways for making a door act that way. Unless we're talking about actual reality, in which case you could patent breathing, and the patent office would grant it without reading it, leaving it to the people you bill (for breathing without a license) to somehow find the mega$$$ needed to get the courts to invalidate the stupid thing.
Comment on misleading post(s) (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand, but that breaks down even worse in SCO's favor. The litmus test is this:
1. Is the code EXACTLY the same?
This is not the litmus test. Copyrighted material need not be copied exactly for infringement. See that part on "substantial similarity" above. While the exact breadth of copyright protection is not nailed down, it is certainly not "exact" by any stretch of the imagination or caselaw.
2. Can SCO prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the code was explicitly copied, was disguised, did not diverge and was not re-implemented.
Uh, what? First, SCO only has to show that it was more likely than not copied. Reasonable doubt is only for criminal trials. Second, again, it need not be copied exactly. Third, it need not be disguised. In fact, copyright is a strict-liability statute. Intent is completely irrelevant. Even if you are influenced subconsciously, you are liable. Independent creation is a complete defense, but not realistic here, I don't think. Fourth, I don't understand what you mean by divergence and re-implementation. It sounds like similarity or derivative works. In either case, your standard of exact copying is wrong. Derivative works are entitled to the same protection as the original.
3. Can SCO show a trade secret that was stolen?
Trade secrets have absolutely nothing to do with copyright law.
We pretty much know that #1 is false
First, your #1 isn't the right test. Second, you know nothing until a jury tells you. It's a crapshoot like no other.
and that #2 is damn near impossible to prove.
Well, you have a strawman. You constructed an impossibly narrow and inaccurate test. Of course it's impossible to prove.
#3 is useless to them because TISC revealed the secret. They can sue TISC for that (if they have a leg to stand on), but they can't sue anyone else.
Again, nothing to do with copyright, which, with contract breach, is the heart of SCO's claims. I feel you might not be well-versed on these points.
Thus SCO is still performing barratry and they know it.
Barratry. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
1 : the purchase or sale of office or preferment in church or state
2 : an unlawful act or fraudulent breach of duty on the part of a master of a ship or of the mariners to the injury of the owner of the ship or cargo
3 : the persistent incitement of litigation
[from http://www.m-w.com/ [m-w.com]]
They're not inciting litigation. They're instigating it. Furthermore, they haven't done it persistently, just one big, long case.
IANAL, but I have taken copyright and contract law classes. I am not Just Guessing here.
Re:Time to move to Mach-o (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, if we can't use ELF, we would have to move to another binary format, which means that we would have to pick one new binary format, then recompile and relink of everything. That's a hassle, but it's not fatal.
Re:Kernel 3.0 will be double in size (Score:2, Insightful)
Standards can't be owned (Score:5, Insightful)
There are three ways of 'owning' a standard:
The first is patents. For example, something about Betamax tapes were patented, and thus people had to license the standard from the owner, Sony. SCO has no patents, so can't possibly have one over ELF, so let's move on.
The second is trademarks. For example, Firewire is trademarked by Apple. This doesn't stop anyone from making Firewire ports on their laptop, but it does stop them from calling them Firewire ports, without paying a fee. Likewise, anyone can impliment ISO-9001, but you have to get certified if you want to call yourself that. (Technically, I don't think these are trademarks, they're 'seal of approval' marks, but they're under trademark law somewhere.)
The third is ownership of the copyright of the standards document. Quite a few standards organizations make their money this way.
While I know SCO does not have a trademark on ELF, and I doubt they somehow have copyright on the standards document that someone else released into the public domain before they were born, the important thing to remember is that only patents can stop someone from implimenting a standard.
I can sit here without having pay any money to Phillips for their standards documentation or their trademark and build a CD player. I can't call it a 'CD' player without getting their approval, and I'll have a hell of a time building it without looking at their documenation, but as all patents on basic CD players obviously expired already (Yeah, it's been 20 years.), I can build one, and even sell it.
As there never were any ELF patents, there has never been anything to prevent anyone else from implimenting it, period. Even if TISC trademarked 'ELF' and sold the standards documentation, it's still perfectly legal for someone to use that document, or in fact any way of figuring out the format they want, and impliment a system that uses ELF, even if they have to call it 'HOBBIT' or something. (Remember, reverse engineering for compatiblity reasons is still legal.)
(For everyone still paying attention, there is standard information in the format, and I can just hear everyone thinking 'what about copyright on those bytes?'. Well, no go. It's been explicitly ruled that, since copyright is only on creative works, and as information required by a standard is not 'creative', but 'factual', thus, you can't copyright it.)
Re:ELF licence/standard (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the issue revolves around no other license, express or implied, is granted or intended hereby. I read as ELF is given to you under this license and no other licenses are implied and allowed. Which means that the release of ELF under GPL is not allowed.
Richard Stallman would probably stomp his feet too if someone was releasing emacs under a different license.
I think that the aim is to make GPL a non enforceable license more than collecting money.