Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Software Linux

Linux Kernel Code May Have Been in SCO UnixWare 455

Posted by timothy
from the hard-to-say-sonny-hard-to-say dept.
Random BedHead Ed writes "Groklaw has some interesting new information online. In an entry today, PJ has posted the Deposition of Erik W. Hughes (PDF), a SCO employee. Hughes' 2004 testimony reveals that the Linux Kernel Personality (LKP) of UnixWare somehow used kernel code. Exactly how it was used is not clear. UnixWare was released under a proprietary license, but the General Public License under which Linux is distributed requires derivative works to use the same license. As PJ says, it's "now apparent why SCO tried to say the GPL is unconstitutional" back in 2003."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Kernel Code May Have Been in SCO UnixWare

Comments Filter:
  • Thanks. (Score:5, Funny)

    by unixbugs (654234) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @08:39PM (#13283114)
    A big up yours to whoever modded me down for stating that I've suspected stuff like this for a while from them.
  • Karma (Score:5, Insightful)

    by adam.conf (893668) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @08:40PM (#13283121)
    Haha, who says there's no such thing as karma... It's just poetic justice that SCO gets what they deserve.
    • It's just poetic justice that SCO gets what they deserve.

      It looks to me that what SCO got is that they got away with it. They stole GPL code and are certainly not being punished for it.

      • It remains to be seen if they(SCO, Darl, et al) will be "punished". However, between this and the problems they will be having with Novell [slashdot.org], I sense impending doom for SCO.
        • I think that SCO should be sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit, a bad-faith lawsuit. They violated copyright law, then attempted to claim that others had violated their copyrights.

          Darl should be held personally liable along with the lawyers involved.
  • by code shady (637051) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @08:41PM (#13283123) Homepage
    So, does that mean that code in the linux kernel now was once in UnixWare?

    Or does it mean that SCO UnixWare has code that was once in the linux kernel?

    It's interesting either way, of course, but c'mon guys. Precise wording is your friend.
  • by cbelle13013 (812401) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @08:42PM (#13283126)
    2004 is so last year.
  • Move along (Score:4, Funny)

    by kalla (254222) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @08:42PM (#13283130) Homepage
    Obi-Wan: This is not the code you're looking for.
  • by tekiegreg (674773) <tekieg1-slashdot@yahoo.com> on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @08:43PM (#13283135) Homepage Journal
    GPL code in UnixWare...SCO forced to either pay damages or open source the Kernel. Something I never thought I'd see.
    • GPL code in UnixWare...SCO forced to either pay damages or open source the Kernel. Something I never thought I'd see.
      --
      ...in bed


      Something I never thought I'd see in bed either.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @09:16PM (#13283294)
      Just announced: Linus Torvalds demands $699 from Darl McBride
    • Incorrect (Score:5, Informative)

      by spitzak (4019) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @11:13PM (#13283772) Homepage
      Just want to repeat what another poster said. The above post is false. Assumming there really is GPL code in SCO's kernel:

      1. They *may* have to pay damages, if somebody sues them and wins. This is legally possible.

      2. Under *NO* possible scenario do they "have" to open-source their kernel. This is FUD straight from Bill Gates.

      3. Even if they *do* open-source the kernel, they are *still* liable for damages, because they were violating the copyright before they open-sourced it. Otherwise there would be a huge loophole in the GPL (just wait until the code is uselessly old and release it and you are absolved of all copyright violations?)

      It is true that companies often decide to open source some piece of code that they put GPL code into, in exchange for a promise to drop any pending lawsuits, and/or just for good public relations. However there is absolutely no legal requirement that they do this, and doing it does not put them in a legally better situation than before.
      • Re:Incorrect (Score:5, Informative)

        by mcc (14761) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @01:17AM (#13284220) Homepage
        2. Under *NO* possible scenario do they "have" to open-source their kernel. This is FUD straight from Bill Gates.

        Actually, they have to open-source their kernel under one possible scenario:

        If they link against linux code from their kernel, and they wish to continue distributing this kernel after this comes to light.

        SCO kind of needs to keep distributing their kernel. They still sell the thing as their core business. Or they claim they do, anyway, whether that's actually what they do is another matter.

        Now, they can of course just cut out all the GPLed code and keep distributing their kernel with the GPL-linked parts missing, but if the GPLed code exists it appears it's in the LKP, which is a fairly major feature that SCO has been advertising heavily as, well, almost SCO UNIX's only notable feature of late. It is quite likely many of SCO's customers are now depending on this feature. Dropping it now would be a painful decision even if their customers (both of them that remain, anyway) would let them do it at all.

        Having to make a choice between GPLing their kernel and dropping the LKP, if it comes to that-- and depending on exactly what and where whatever Linux, that-- is not really much of a choice. But, of course, if that comes to pass it will be only because SCO purposefully decided to become bootleggers on a huge scale, so don't feel sympathy for them.
        • Re:Incorrect (Score:3, Interesting)

          by sumdumass (711423)
          They could possibly get out of that scenario too. It wouldn't be too dificult to seperate the code, offer it as an optional patch (by a third party) and open the patch itself.

          This would isolate the offending code and the gpl from SCO's products. It would also allow a consumer to continue to use the features if it was decided neccesary. SCO's contract would say users cannot distribute the product or modify it outside it's original intent so the need to distibute the source would be negated. If they opened th
  • Far from certain (Score:5, Informative)

    by EssenceLumin (755374) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @08:45PM (#13283142)
    If you read the actual Groklaw article you will see it may just have been some copy of the kernel on one of their distribution disks which would be fine as far as the gpl is concerned. If they actually integrated source code from the linux kernel into their own kernel that would be very interesting and bad karma indeed for them. But that is far from certain.
    • This would not explain, as the article asserts, why they tried to claim the GPL unconstitutional. If the GPL is found to be invalid, that means code is protected by regular copyright law, which would have even more restrictions than the GPL. Meaning if they actually did include kernel code in their own code they would be in an even worse situation if the GPL is invalid. Or am I missing something here?
      • Re:Also (Score:5, Informative)

        by mOdQuArK! (87332) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @09:43PM (#13283408)
        They weren't trying to invalidate the GPL completely - they were trying to argue that anything under the GPL was essentially public domain, and that the GPL didn't have the power to require redistribution of source code. If they had gotten their way, then they would've been clear.
        • Re:Also (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @02:58AM (#13284465) Homepage
          It's completely absurd from a legal point of view though. A great many licenses like the BSD licenses, which require even less of the licensee (let's not start another flamewar over "freer" here) have been through the courts and upheld. There's no case of "almost-but-not-quite-public-domain" licenses being nullified. And even if they were, they'd return to the default. And under US law, the Berne convention and so on that means copyrighted, not public domain. If they had gotten their way, you'd see pigs flying and an ice skating party in hell.

          Kjella
    • Well several people said this was likely back when the suit first started. When you consider that SCO claims to have found their code in the Linux kernel and factor in that OSS code has always been of higher quality than SCO's crappy products and that OSS code is much more easily available to SCO than SCO's code is to the world, I think it'd be somewhat suprising if one of their third-rate programmers HADN'T copied OSS code into their source tree. Plagarism is much more likely in that direction than in this
  • Great (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dtfinch (661405) * on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @08:47PM (#13283153) Journal
    Now they'll be sued into oblivion, some more.

    I can't see this forcing the UnixWare kernel to be relicensed under the GPL though, especially since some of the code couldn't be GPL'd even if they wanted. It'd just make them quite a bit more liable for copyright infringement than they already were. Since the offending code was supposedly removed over 2 years ago, they could easily claim the infringement was accidental and they made a best effort to remedy it, short of notifying the copyright owners.
  • confidential (Score:3, Interesting)

    by chris_mahan (256577) <chris.mahan@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @08:47PM (#13283160) Homepage
    I noticed the big 'confidential' on the first page of the pdf...

    Someone care to exlpain?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @08:50PM (#13283177)
      Main Entry: confidential
      Pronunciation: "kän-f&-'den(t)-sh&l
      Function: adjective
      1 : marked by intimacy or willingness to confide
      2 : PRIVATE, SECRET
      3 : entrusted with confidences
      4 : containing information whose unauthorized disclosure could be prejudicial to the national interest -- compare SECRET, TOP SECRET
      - confidentiality /-"den(t)-shE-'a-l&-tE/ noun
      - confidentially /-'den(t)-sh(&-)lE/ adverb
    • Back in the spring when Maureen O'Gara and moved to have documents unsealed, the judge turned them down. However, he also indicated that the parties should review all sealed material to see if anything had been improperly sealed.

      Since then, both IBM and SCO have been releasing court filings that were originally filed under seal.

      You will note, if you read the PDF, that not all pages are available. Presumably, that is the way it was released by the courts, but that is not completely clear.
    • There are 8 pages missing. I'm guessing that part's still confidential or someone doesn't know how to work a scanner.
  • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @08:48PM (#13283162) Homepage Journal
    ...but honestly, did anyone not see this coming?

    The dumbest part is that they probably could've used BSD code (eg FreeBSD's Linux emulation layer) and done it legally.

  • by Sv-Manowar (772313) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @08:49PM (#13283172) Homepage Journal

    This being true, I really don't see why SCO suddenly went on the offensive against Linux. Surely they would have known scrutiny would have come their way, and these violations of their own would have been brought to light.

    Unless, of course, the knowledge wasn't available at the time SCO decided to start going after Linux because they hadn't properly audited their own code base to ensure they were on the clearest possible ground internal ground before starting to attack the legitimacy of others code bases.

  • by bgfay (5362) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @08:49PM (#13283173) Homepage
    I've gone on record here at /. as saying that maybe we shouldn't be reading about and going nuts over every bit of news out of SCO, but this seems to take things in another direction. Rathern than Linux having SCO code in it, SCO code now has GPL'ed code in it? Doesn't that mean that besides being absolutely annoying, they've also broken the law? Oh, well in that case, let's have at it.

    I wonder what Boies and company get out of this. I remember reading about Boies during the MS trials and he's a fascinating guy. The problem with finding a lawyer fascinating is that eventually they have to defend OJ or Darl McBride or some other idiot. But it seems to me that Boies went into this one where he had a choice to stay outside. Very strange.

    Hell, I don't even know if Boies is still involved in any of this. I figure even if he is, they might need a different kind of lawyer for defense instead of attack. Tee-hee.
    • Illegal? Not in the sense of criminal. But violating the GPL, well, if there's Linux kernel code in there, yep, they violating the GPL. But that's civil, not criminal (unless the DMCA has something in it; and in that case, wouldn't it be pretty hypocritical of those of us who have been bashing SCO (I have) and bashing the DMCA to take refuge in the latter to attack the former?).
      • by midav (63224) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @10:00PM (#13283481)
        Illegal? Not in the sense of criminal.

        It appears that willfull infringement is a criminal offence.

        I shamelessly cut and pasted the following from the Y!. Thanks are going to elcorton:

        ---

        506. Criminal offenses

        (a) Criminal Infringement. Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either

        (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

        (2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,

        shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code.

        ---

        http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usco de17/usc_sec_17_00000506----000-.html [cornell.edu]

        ---

        2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright

        (a) Whoever violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.

        (b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1) of title 17

        (1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;

        (2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and

        (3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.

        ---

        http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usco de18/usc_sec_18_00002319----000-.html [cornell.edu]

        • by Sparr0 (451780)
          I am sure someone will point out, incorrectly, that the linux kernel has no retail value. The retail value of a GPL'd copy of the linux kernel is zero, or nearly so, but the key here is that they are not complying with the GPL. That means what they are distributing has an indeterminate retail value. If you put an unencumbered (read: released to public domain by every rights holder) copy of the linux kernel up on ebay I imagine it would pull in a number with a not-insignificant number of zeros on the end.
    • by isn't my name (514234) <slash@threenort h . c om> on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @09:08PM (#13283258)
      I wonder what Boies and company get out of this.

      Money. Lots and lots of money. A post on Groklaw that SCO's legal fees have topped $40 million [groklaw.net]. SCO does have a cap, so by the end of this year, they will be paying no more for the current cases.

      Of course, if someone whose copyright SCO had violated were to sue, that would not be covered by the current legal agreement between SCO and its law firm.
  • Created Uncertainty (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mpapet (761907) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @08:58PM (#13283215) Homepage
    I think they pretty much succeeded in labeling the use of Linux as "risky" (in the U.S. anyway) with untold IP issues.

    I'd like to know how would anyone know (as in establish as fact) their compiled code contained GPL'd parts? It was easy to spot when those jokers claimed PearPC was something they made. But, how would anyone know in this case?

    It might have been a trial balloon for Microsoft to gauge their litigation options too.
    • by pete6677 (681676) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @09:35PM (#13283374)
      This is the exact reason why Microsoft bought those SCO "Linux licenses". It funded a 2 year FUD campaign much more powerful than anything Microsoft could have done under their own name, and no doubt scared litigation-conscious companies away from Linux and into the safe arms of Microsoft. I think they have now lost all credibility and will be filing Chapter 11 within a year, but it was great publicity for Microsoft while it lasted.
    • No, it doesn't. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by beldraen (94534) <chad.montplaisir ... m ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @09:41PM (#13283399)
      It may create uncertainty in companies that have never thought about this issue, but it certainly isn't anything new for those that are aware of I.P. issues. I was a programmer for my last company. The issue was simple: you don't copy code from outside unless you can document without a doubt where it was comming from. Even then, it was usually better to observe the idea and clean room develop the library. Unfortunately, most code is crap and following basic coding practices is beyond many programmers. So, it was usually better to create it in-house, anyways.
  • Short SCOX today!
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    The following message is for the humor impaired or woefully ignorant:
    (The above is a joke, those of you who have been following along in the SCO fiasco know all the details, like why you cannot short SCOX, and what would have happened when people on slashdot first started suggesting this.)
  • by CyricZ (887944) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @09:02PM (#13283228)
    It would be fantastic if the source code to UnixWare was forced to be released due to this. Indeed, UnixWare was a great PC UNIX in the early to mid 1990s. But unfortunately it has stagnated since then.

    A GPL'ed UnixWare would be amazing for what remains of the UnixWare community. It could be brought up to date and made useful again. It could provide some competition to Linux, the BSDs and Solaris on smaller servers.

    It would be interesting, however, to see Novell's take on this.

    • The GPL does not work that way. I don't know where everyone is getting this shit from. Technically, they've already violated the GPL and releasing the source code as GPL won't rectify the situation. In reality, they have simply infringed copyright, so the Linux kernel devs can sue them and demand damages. Of course, that would take money and would ultimately be pointless.
      • Where have you been? Were you living in a cave or something?

        There have been many cases of stolen GPL code where the offending party was contacted and they agreed to release the source code instead of taking it to court.

        This happened when netfilter code (iptables) was stolen, and in many other cases. There is also an effort for making offending companies release source code. See http://gpl-violations.org/ [gpl-violations.org] for more info.
    • As if there's enough of a market for any MORE unix systems? The Unix vendors are basically already killing themselves with it, as there really is no more market for it that Linux/BSD hasn't already absorbed.

      I've been using Unix for most of my life, and quite frankly, if it's not Linux/BSD, it's not useful.
      • There are still people using UnixWare in production environments. These are systems that have been running perfectly fine since the early to mid 1990s. Now, there may come a time when these systems must be updated. Moving to a newer, yet still backwards compatible, release of UnixWare would often be the ideal solution.

        Personally, I'd prefer to use a community-developed release of UnixWare if possible. You get the benefits of the development process and source code capabilities of Linux and the BSDs, but wit
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @09:03PM (#13283236)
    SCO = SO COMPLETELY OWNED!
  • by overshoot (39700) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @09:06PM (#13283247)
    How charming. IANAL but ...

    If I understand the way copyright law works, this would be more than enough to let anyone with a registered copyright on part of the Linux kernel subpoena the source for LKP to check for infringement.

    Should there in fact be apparently-infringing material there, then the copyright owner could get a preliminary injunction forcing SCOX to cease and desist immediately, and very likely an order recalling all licensed copies with infringing material.

    Now, there would be a bond required but otherwise PI for infringement is dang near automatic. So a company with registered Linux kernel contributions and a bit of money could pretty much finish off SCOX as a software vendor by forcing their users to convert away.

    I suppose that it's a good thing for SCOX that there aren't any companies like that who would be willing to go to court with them, now, isn't it?

  • by Khashishi (775369) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @09:11PM (#13283277) Journal
    Now they can claim that Linux contains Unix code.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @09:12PM (#13283279)
    Current events:
    • SCOvIBM: In the wake of the recent opinion [groklaw.net] issued by Judge Kimball, fact discovery will continue until 27 Jan 2006, and the parties must disclose with specificity all "allegedly infringing materials" by 22 Dec 2005. Redacted and unsealed motions are being rapidly released, with SCO finally joining in. The parties seem to be still consulting [groklaw.net] with each other on the privilege log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, now partially redacted [groklaw.net] discovery motion [groklaw.net] awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

    • SCOvNovell: On 29 Jul 2005 Novell answered SCO's amended complaint and filed an impressive array of counterclaims [groklaw.net] . Perhaps the most compelling request that Novell indicates they will present to the court seeks to require that income SCO received from Microsoft, Sun, and the other "Intellectual Property Licenses with Linux end users and UNIX vendors" be held in a "constructive trust" until Novell's contract claims are decided. Other counterclaims call for relief relating to SCO's alleged slander of Novell's title to UNIX System V copyrights and declarative, injunctive, and monetary relief relating to SCO's alleged breaches of the contracts effecting the sale of Novell's UNIX business to Santa Cruz. In particular, Novell seeks to have the court enforce Novell's actions to stop SCO's threats regarding Linux and AIX; to audit the terms of SCO's SCOSource licenses issued to Microsoft, Sun, and others; and to collect any money owed to Novell resulting from SCO's SCOSource activities. Unless SCO is granted an extension of time, they should reply to these counterclaims by 22 Aug 2005.

    • RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated [groklaw.net] that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due approximately 28 Sept 2005.

    • SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed [groklaw.net] this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is expected around 11 Aug 2005.

    Pending/Recently decided motions:

  • by Junior J. Junior III (192702) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @09:12PM (#13283282) Homepage
    Well well well well well!
    Well well well well well!

    WELL WELL WELL WELL WELL!!!

    Look what we have here!

    It's enough fodder to feed an ARMY of trolls!

    The land of Grocklaw is sure to be overrun with the vermin.
  • by Pete (2228) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @09:17PM (#13283304)
    Page 14 of the PDF [groklaw.net], pages 83-84 of transcript:
    Q: I'd like to direct your attention to the bottom email. Quote, "Reading some of the comments on the internet, the long-hair smelly's (sic) are indicating we have not turned off our Linux downloads?" Close quote.

    Who are the long-hair smellies?

    A: That's a common stereotypical name of computer geeks.

    "Long-hair smelly's"

    Ye fucking gods. :-)

    • uh, that would be us... Well, you really. with your 2228 uid...
      • by Pete (2228)
        Damn my far-too-revealing four-digit ID. :)

        I had great trouble trying to work out if I should feel offended or contemptuous or just amused by that SCO email excerpt - but "amused" won in the end.

        It is kind of an offensive term, but I guess you need to have some respect for a person's opinion in order to be offended by them. And the fact that they couldn't even spell their own disparaging term... well.

  • I'm no lawyer, so I wouldn't know how these sort of depositions go, but is it normal for the opposing side to raise an objection to virtually every single question you pose? It would appear that Mr. Heise is very energetic with his objections...
  • by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @09:20PM (#13283316)
    Bad Guys are Shmucks.

    Bad Guys don't like to fix the problems within themselves, because that's hard and scary work. So instead, and this is what makes them Bad Guys, they pretend that they're perfect and that the world outside them is imperfect. This is much easier to do, probably because it doesn't actually change anything. Changing things takes work. Wishful Thinking only takes Wishful Thinking.

    Where it gets ugly is when the world says, "Uh, no, actually. You're living in an illusion and you're the ugly one. Sorry, but that's the objective reality of the situation."

    When faced with this, the Bad Guy has a problem; S/he has to either fess up or fall into even more aggressive denial of the subject in order to placate themselves. Fessing up gets progressively more difficult to do as you train your brain to work in certain ways; those synaptic pathways get wider the more you use them. So typically, the classic Bad Guy will then villainize the people or things which are telling them how things really stand. And in the end if it goes far enough, the Bad Guy will actually go out and try to destroy the things or people which are making them look stupid as stupid as they are. --Usually while crying, "Evil!" or some such clattering nonsense.

    The fascinating thing about it is that the Bad Guy has practiced hard at pretending fake realities into view while deliberately not seeing what's right in front of them. They are adept ignorers, and thus have horribly atrophied senses of awareness. This is they miss the obvious, like embarrassing code in their own products while hypocritically crying foul. The more Bad a Bad Guy is, the more incredibly stupid and weak-minded they become.

    But even more interesting is the fact that when faced with evidence of such blatant crimes, the Bad Guy is no more able now than before to fess up to the fact that they are Bad Guys. They'll try to rationalize, and indeed lie outright that they are the ones being maligned. Where it gets interesting is that a Good Guy, (or the general public), who would be horribly embarrassed at being shown such evidence of hypocritical behavior, would turn red and fess up immediately. --That's the behavior they understand and automatically expect to see in others. So when the Bad Guy is incapable of displaying that behavior, the Good Guy automatically thinks, "Well, shit, he's not embarrassed at all! So he MUST be telling the truth!"

    Weird, eh?

    For a broad-scale working example of the above, look at the current U.S. administration and it's supporters.


    -FL

  • by Khashishi (775369) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @09:25PM (#13283331) Journal
    Many customers are concerned about using UnixWare since they have become aware of the allegations that UnixWare is an unauthorized derivative work of the Linux® operating system.

    End user customers who purchase a UnixWare IP license will not be in violation of Lot's of Mofos' intellectual property ownership or rights by using a binary distribution of UnixWare.

    Warning! Individual users of UnixWare may be found liable for damages for copyright infringement of intellectual property owned by the Linux developers.

    Purchase your UnixWare license today! (starting at $699)
  • Darl will come out and say "Linus Torvalds is the greatest hacker in the world, and I am proud to call him my son" and claim the idea for Linux was really Darl's that was shared with Linus around the breakfast table.
  • by postbigbang (761081) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @11:00PM (#13283716)
    So what happens when GPL-licensed code is loaded into a GPL-licensec kernel? Here's the poison test, and it's not poisoned. The whole UnixWare license came with the GPL, as well as a few other licenses, including the LGPL.

    So is it poisoned? No.
    Is it a copyright violation? No
    Is it a GNU GPL violation? No.
    Sorry to burst your bubbles. I dislike SCO along with the rest, but in this case, they covered their posteriors. READ THE LICENSES THAT CAME WITH THE PRODUCT.
    • Not exactly, no.

      Regardless of whether the LKP is a loadable module or not, it is still being linked with the UnixWare kernel at runtime, and as such, the UnixWare kernel must either be licensed in a way which is compatible with the GPL, or the distribution is illegal.

      Your confusion stems from the fact that Linus & co granted the OPPOSITE exemption (in part) for the linux kernel; third party kernel modules may be under a GPL-incompatible license, provided that they declare so with a preprocessor directiv
  • by spir0 (319821) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @11:25PM (#13283824) Homepage Journal
    You're trying to tell me that they purposely put Linux code into UnixWare and they still couldn't prove that there was similar code in each source tree?

    Now that's the sort of thing that investors need to know about:

    Dear SCO investors,

    You are investing large amounts of money in a company which;

    a) Fraudulently attack large communities of developers/end users/commercial vendors

    b) Fraudulently claim that aforementioned communities stole your source code and injected it into their software

    c) Couldn't prove any instances of said instances of stolen code

    d) Ironically stole the code from those they attacked

    e) STILL couldn't prove that there was any stolen code even though they knew where it was because they put it there

    You're investing in idiots who have proven they can't even find their own arses (asses for Americans).

    How do you feel?

Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.

Working...