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
IBM is not faulty (Score:5, Interesting)
so ? where does the leak (if any) come from except from SCO itself ?!
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.
Errrrr.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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.
Their Linux distribution sucks anyway... so I wonder what they think harassing end users will do.. I would run just about any alternative OS before I bought anything from SCO at this point.
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.
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: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.
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
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.
Re:SCO's letter contains copyright violations (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:5, Interesting)
Jeroen
What if the code is "Bubble Sort" or similar (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Does MS still own any of SCO? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
speculation (Score:2, Interesting)
As to releasing the code, they can claim to any judge that they haven't finished auditing yet, but had enough and are confident enough to go forward with filing a suit, which could be interpreted as due diligence in protecting property. Hmm, analogy, you have some second home, it's been having bits and pieces stolen for a long time, but you never really noticed it until you saw the really large pieces of property missing, or perhaps you noticed them at a yardsale or pawn shop for sale. Far fetched, but something along those lines near as I am following this. The alleged victim of a crime has no carved in stone set time to notice the theft, it's whenever they become aware of it, according to them of course, and if they can prove it. And now that they themselves stopped shipping their linux version, they can again claim that was part of on going auditing,and due diligence, they then realised they had to stop what they were doing, part of the mitigation and damage control effort..
Above pure speculation of course. Never be surprised what groupings of words may be used in any suit.
Triage in advance for linux is needed of course, for a just-in-case scenario. Where's the replacement for sysV? I'm no guru here but that seems obvious. Now that everyone knows that is the issue, that's where mitigation efforts need to be made. IF the suit-by some wild stretch-has merit to it, and it causes sysV as it stands to be tainted, there sure is gonna need a replacement and pronto, yes? Maybe it won't, I don't know, but if it does, is this a major problem as it stands now, just theoretically?
Or, another clean room approach, just create a newer and better system, call it linuxII.
I would think that's a better long range idea anyway, a mega fork, using better initial design and an even more open license if one can be written.
Last year I was reading of an entirely different approach to OSs and file systems, it seemed phenomeneally better as a theory to me at the time, dang if I can remember the name now, not being a coder just an interested user. From what I remember it was almost impregnable and uncorruptable in theory, it was a smallish thread/article but the guru
The planets and the moon get nailed with asteroids and meteors once in awhile, stuff happens, causes big changes sometimes. I imagine it's no different in business, any business.
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 :)
Uber Conspiracy! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Errrrr.... (Score:1, Interesting)
On another note, I think this "SCO-mess" will turn out for the good, and I look forward to see things unfold. It's important for the OSS-development model to be tested. Perhaps things will need to be changed to make the process stronger, but this is just evolution.
Re:Errrrr.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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:2, Interesting)
Really, you can't force companies to reveal their source code with technicalities, no matter how much the company's management are being jerks, without it setting off alarm bells in management at all companies.
Double-edged. Was:SCO has Dirty Hands. (Score:1, Interesting)
So even though I was the legal owner and sold it (but unwittingly too cheap), the transaction was not valid as it concerned stolen good received under a false premise.
SCO could argue in a similar vein. Of course, if they want to do that, it means that all their sales of Linux did _not_ result in legal licensing. The recipients of the illegitimate software would have to cease using it, but SCO would have to reimburse them for their licenses, as well as resulting business damages if SCO can be shown to have acted in a way increasing the damage.
It seems that SCO is out to collect on this angle which would explain that they stopped distributing Linux right now: having to pay off every user of SCO Unix (if the court follows their own suit!) might result in a quite ironic manner of committing suicide.
Re:All your base (Score:2, Interesting)
has the GPL been court tested? Just because the GPL states something doesn't mean it will stand up in court. A judge is liable to do anything. That's the scary thing.
Now for the good news. Once the GPL has been court tested and a precednet has been set, then it may stop some of these things.
load of bs (Score:2, Interesting)
who benefits from this? (Score:2, Interesting)
I more and more suspect that a few key people at SCO were simply bribed to bring about this scandal. No matter whether this goes to court or not, it has already hurt Linux and will probably hurt it even more.
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
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:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:2, Interesting)
Interestingly, enough, that is irrelevant.
Nobody is saying SCO used the GPL, and must now hand over it's source (at least in the context of this discussion).
*SCO* is claiming that developers misappropriated SCO IP in the form of code.
It is being replied that:
1)SCO has a duty to minimize damage -by saying WHAT, specifically, is being used improperly and,
2)Since SCO released it's own version of linux under the GPL, the code (assuming SCO used it's code in the distro, after all, they haven't said WHAT code is at issue...) is licensed under the GPL.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He's going to tell, he's going to tell! (Score:2, Interesting)
They'll just keep singing and we'll never actually get to see the evidence behind the allegations. It's the WMD of the Unix world.
JoAnn
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
Who could have predicted this? I could... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now I am going to go and take the knife out of my back. Thank you.
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 the Scientific Data Systems.
There have been , as a crude estimate, well over 10,000 books written on the subject.
History of the subject is rich and way to complex to research by one company , or a law firm, but it is well within the grasp of a million specialists sitting at a computer, or leafing thru JACM or IEEE publications, and the millions of ancient books they have in their posession.
One ofshoot of this is that those who subscribed to MSDN( as I did) will also search for any source code that resembles the supposedly infringing code.
So at that point Microsoft may have to get into picture and coach SCO as to not to reveal the code, since the outcome for Microsoft may not be pretty.
Al in all this is a good thing for Linux. We can get a lot of milage out of this. A lot more than they hope to get.
I can understand some proprietary software company having a brain-storm session and coming up with a scenario like this to curb the growth of Linux, but this ain't it.
All this has accomplished this far is crystalize the opposition to SCO and Microsoft.
Any companies it actually has helped is Sun and IBM.
It appears that these people still don't understand what open source is about. There IS no air supply to cut off. There IS no funds to dry. If IBM stopped Linux developement today, Linux will still charge on. Now, next year, next decade.
Another problem for Microsoft is that, even if Linux was banned, then all these programmers would develope Office tools, CRM, Games, and all the other lucrative things that MS is trying to capitalize on. Apache has already demonstrated that when OSS can't eat Microsofts lunch at OS, it will eat their lunch on their home turf.
Tp paraphrase, "Linux sticks like #$%^ to Microsofts blanket".
SCO has buyout potential, not a case (Score:3, Interesting)
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 they have expanded the scope of their suit in this way:
In my opinion, SCO are the lowest form of useless amateurs in the history of computing.