Did SCO 'Borrow' Linux Code? 688
An Anonymous Reader writes "Apparently someone inside SCO has stated that SCO(actually Caldera) copied Linux code into System V. They did it to build what they now market as Linux Kernel Personality - the ability to run Linux software on their Unix. Now, the open source community(of course they don't mention who) is jumping on this, because they didn't return the changes to the OS community or give the community credit. Of course, SCO says it's a misunderstanding and, get this 'SCO also never used any of the Linux kernel code.'"
"Someone inside SCO" (Score:5, Funny)
Hints and allegations! Jump on it!
Re:"Someone inside SCO" (Score:5, Interesting)
From what I can see right now, these allegations have about as much chance of being true as SCO's claims.
Re:"Someone inside SCO" (Score:3, Funny)
Daniel
much better chance of being true (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps a lot more. Anyone stealing code from SCO would likely at least change the comments, as they know the source code is going to be public. On the other hand, anyone doing code for SCO knows that the code is not open source, and likely never expects anyone who could match it to Linux code to see it. Might have even been done by a coder who wanted a quick fix without the knowledge of the management of SCO (or Caldera or whatever name the software was done under at the time). Then later someone at SCO finds the matching code. What is their first impulse? To say "Oh, we may be stealing code"? Or to say "Our code matches code in Linux so IBM must have stolen our code".
I still like Cringley's explination best, that SCO did exactly what they openly said they were doing and merged Linux with Unix. But assuming they didn't make this up completely and indeed there is some code in Unix that matchs code in Linux down to the comments, it seems much more likely that some of the widely available open source Linux code was improperly put into Unix than some of the closely protected source code for Unix was put into Linux.
Re:"Someone inside SCO" (Score:5, Insightful)
To be precise, SCO is spreading rumours that they have evidence.
Re:"Someone inside SCO" (Score:5, Funny)
But I DO have the evidence of this, I just cant release it as it will violate the Intellectual property, or allow them to change it. I have a NDA you can sign so I can show you selected bits of the proof... Specifically all the vowels.
When we have our day in court our proof that cannot be seen by anyone will show them!
Hey, I'm just playing SCO's game by their rules.
Re:"Someone inside SCO" (Score:4, Funny)
Yea and Bush has evidence of WMD in Iraq.
Re:"Someone inside SCO" (Score:5, Funny)
Like the receipts.
Next time, please credit Bill Hicks (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"Someone inside SCO" (Score:5, Interesting)
So there isn't much evidence either way (though, as soon as which lines they are leak, we'll check logs to see who contributed them), but there's a whole lot of speculation going against SCO.
Re:"Someone inside SCO" (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not saying this is what has happened but it is at least a possibility. Big companies can be incredibly incompetent at times.
Re:"Someone inside SCO" (Score:5, Funny)
Everybody knows... (Score:4, Funny)
They have no intention of taking it to court!
Re:Everybody knows... (Score:3, Funny)
I thought they mostly used GAIM.
I'd take one (Score:4, Funny)
The continuing saga of SCO's suicide. (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean SCOicide (Score:5, Funny)
SCOicide: to kill yourself the SCO way.
SCue: to sue people to your own detrement.
SCOurce code: invisible, yet high value code that does not exist in any physical form. Beyond quantum code.
You are being mistaken (Score:5, Informative)
There is no need to prove the legality of GPL. If it was invalid, or if someone doesn't want to agree with its terms (because no one has to accept GPL, as it is stated in the GPL itself -- you don't have to sign it, after all) then the only rules there are, are those imposed by the copyright law, which makes it illegal to distribute copyrighted works. If anyone wants to distribute GPL'ed software while saying that she doesn't agree with the GPL, or while questioning its legality, then all she has is a copyright law, which clearly states that what she's doing is illegal. I have posted a comment [slashdot.org] about it, but it has only Score:2, so obviously no one has read it. Basically, if SCO thinks GPL doesn't mean anything from the legal point of view, then, after rejecting the GPL, when they look at the Linux kernel, what they have is just a piece of software with "Copyright (C) 1991-2003 Linus & Co. All right reserved."
Re:The continuing saga of SCO's suicide. (Score:4, Informative)
In two weeks no one will care. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In two weeks no one will care. (Score:5, Interesting)
The same thing could easily happen in this case. IF there is SCO IP in Linux, whatever code it is can be changed in minutes or hours, and even IF SCO was right, they might not get anything! Of course the other good example is USL vs. BSDI, but SCO apparently never paid attention in their history or business law classes...
Re:In two weeks no one will care. (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally however I have been pointing out that SCO had this Linux integration program for a while now (ref: This Post [slashdot.org]) and moreover that SCO have been releasing this code under the terms of the GPL themselves by continuing shipping Caldera Linux.
To be quite honest, the only people who benefit from this are the Lawyers. Quick, someone check to make sure Darl hasn't invested
Re:In two weeks no one will care. (Score:5, Informative)
Besides the article you site supports these facts. The $90k was paid to Microsoft. It was afterward, when MS made EB out to be a poster child of licence abuse, that the EB Executives themselves decided to give their own IT department 120 days to become Windows-free.
Real good read, tho!
Re:In two weeks no one will care. (Score:5, Insightful)
> public domain.
There's no way that the Linux kernel _is_ in the public domain. You clearly don't know what the public domain is.
> To try to prevent distribution based on 80 lines
> of code of a program with thousands of lines...
Millions.
Re:In two weeks no one will care. (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.sco.com/scosource/complaint3.06.03.htm
80. Any software licensed under the GPL (including Linux) must, by its terms, not be held proprietary or confidential, and may not be claimed by any party as a trade secret or copyright property.
Re:In two weeks no one will care. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In two weeks no one will care. (Score:5, Insightful)
Paragraphs 77 to 81 of SCO's complaint [sco.com] describe their view of "General Public License" [sic]. In Paragraph 80, read their claims on GPL copyrights (they say there aren't any). Paragraph 77 (and their general claims overall) seek to thus establish Linux is a combination of public domain and nefariously obtained proprietary SCO IP. If the court accepts this line of reasoning, we are left with the situation, where SCO will be able to claim exclusive copyright on the overall work of Linux.
Chris Sonntag made it completely clear when he publcly said 'we hope to get our arms around all the Linux out there' and 'there is no legal use of Linux'?
Re:In two weeks no one will care. (Score:5, Informative)
These limitations of liability are no different that those included in Sun's Solaris BCL, despite SCO's claim above the contrary:
All Sun's guaranteeing is that the media is good and that they'll replace your media if defective. All current Linux distributions that distribute on physical media will, of course, do the same. Sun is essentially saying that they'll give you your money back for the license fee paid if and only if a court determines that it's limitations of liability (read: disclaimer of all liability) are held to be invalid under the law. And the only reason they're saying that is so that their whole limitations of liability (read: disclaimer of liability) doesn't wholesale get tossed out on the basis that it violates contract law. (IANAL, but I did have a business law class
This is the same for Linux, except, in all cases regarding the licensing of the kernel, there is no license fee paid, hence, you get no money back. Duh.
Re:In two weeks no one will care. (Score:3, Interesting)
78. The primary purpose of the GNU organization is to create free software based on valuable commercial software. The primary operating system advanced by GNU is Linux.
80. Any software licensed under the GPL (including Linux) must, by its terms, not be held proprietary or confidential, and may not be claimed by any party as a trade secret or copyright property.
Link is http://www.sco.com/scosource/complaint3.06.03.html [sco.com]
Re:In two weeks no one will care. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is of course totally false. In fact it is an outright lie and in total contradiction to the real facts.
The GPL does not work unless somebody claims copyright. Usually the original author or the company they work for, but sometimes copyright is assigned over to the FSF.
If there is no claim to copyright then the software is public domain, and the GPL is meaningless. So by definition the GPL means the code is copyrighted property.
according to Mr. X (Score:5, Funny)
Re:according to Mr. X (Score:4, Funny)
You must have read a different report than I did. The one I saw said that one region has 80 matching lines, including some comments that match. The article did not say whether or not both Unix and Linux had borrowed those lines from, say, BSD, or whether, hrm, SCO borrowed them from Linux.
Can Linus sue SCO now? (Score:5, Funny)
Does this mean that Linus can now sue SCO for a billion dollars?
In other news, SCO have announced they are changing their name to reflect changes in their business model. The new name will be SCUM.
from GPL to GPLer (Score:3, Funny)
Look like a lose-lose situation for SCO. I hope that greek tragedy end soon so we can worry about meaningful problems.
SELL SHORT.....SELL SHORT NOW.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Take all of that money before the greedy bastards grab it off the table!!!!....Monetary damages are the only thing the SCO mgmt. and the speculators funding this operation respect. Take their money before they figure out that the knife cuts both ways...
Re:SELL SHORT.....SELL SHORT NOW.... (Score:4, Insightful)
So no-one likes shares prices going down, except short-sellers.
Obligatory South Park... (Score:5, Funny)
This could be very bad for SCO... (Score:3, Informative)
This is exactly the kind of scenario that Cringely pointed out in his latest column about the SCO vs. IBM situation on his PBS.org website:
I, Cringely: Technician, Steal Thyself [pbs.org]
Related past columns:
May 22, 2003 [pbs.org]
May 29, 2003 [pbs.org]
For those of you who haven't already (Score:5, Informative)
History repeats itself (Score:5, Interesting)
I doubt the same problems would happen with SCO, because unlike AT&T back then, which was the Unix company, SCO is just some pissant company no one cares about.
That would also explain why SCO has been so unwilling to show exactly which bits of code they used. People would quickly realize that Linux developers wrote the stuff, not SCO.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to claim that Linux used code stolen from their own Linux compatibility layer. What are they going to claim "Without our code, Linux would never be compatible with, um, Linux"
Get this! (Score:5, Interesting)
Two questions, though:
1) Out of curiosity, how does FreeBSD handle Linux binaries? Is it Linux kernel code included under the GPL somehow or did they implement it themselves? If the latter, isn't this accusation against SCO the same as SCO's argument of "Well, they must have misappropriated our code because, well, they must have!"?
2) What am I supposed to get about "get this 'SCO also never used any of the Linux kernel code.'"? What's the issue? The extraneous "also" that wandered in from the next sentence, probably an eWeek typo? Or is it supposed to be a claim that SCO never used Linux code at all, despite the nect sentence making it clear that "used" means "used in the LKP"?
Re:Get this! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they had to reimplement it because while you can make BSD code GPL you can't take it the other way, at least without copyright holders permission. They were free, of course, to look at the linux code while doing it, making it a relatively easy task. Probably if you looked there are sizeable chunks of identical code and comments there too. I bet the header files are a real treasure trove for those.
Identical chunks of code and comments do not prove copying or copyright infringement. It takes more, in a case like this, because there are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons for it to occur. To determine if something illegal happened, whether we're talking about Caldera copying from Linux or vice versa, you've got to do a much more fine-grained analysis than just counting lines that match.
Re:Get this! (Score:3, Informative)
Hrm... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also interesting to note just how easily SCO found their code in Linux; you'd think it'd be too difficult to find such things unless you were looking...or if you already knew they were there...
Re:Hrm... (Score:5, Funny)
Sub means under in Latin.
Poena means pain or penalty.
Isn't learning fun?
Pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was, oh what?, five years old, I remember that kind of talk in the courtyard at school during recess
- Hey, Johnny stole my yellow marble
- No I DID NOT !
- YES YOU DID !
- It's not your marble anyway, it was mine, I just told you to borrow it, I didn't give it to you
- I'll tell my Mom Bruce stole Robert's marble, and you'll be GROUNDED !
- I DID NOT !
- YES YOU DID !
Replace one of these kids by SCO, another by Novell, a third by IBM, a fourth by the Linux community, the one who tells Mom by Microsoft, the courtyard by the computer industry and Mom by the DOJ and there you have it.
*sigh*
Re:Pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Things will hopefully wrap up on Friday, when SCO is supposed to revoke the AIX license. If they take IBM to court, they will have to show evidence. If they don't, then they lose credibility. Either way, they lose.
Summed Up Nicely (Score:3, Funny)
It's not about the same code in both places... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about seeing the same code in both places, it's about establishing which was developed first. You can't look at just the current version of either linux or SCO - you have to look at the change history of the common code. In one version, the code should show some evolution over time - across RCS versions, or across versions of kernel releases. In the copied version, a whole bunch of code will have appeared "Poof!" all at once. You can't just look at the surface - you have to look beneath the surface, into the code's history.
Of course, there is the possibility - I consider it unlikely - that large chunks of code appeared in both places all at once. This will mean that the code was developed over time external to whichever version of linux or SCO unix had it first, then copied in as part of a major rev... but somebody, some developer somewhere, will have interim versions, notes, design docs. Code doesn't just spring from the head of Zeus - it evolves, and whoever developed it will have to be found to prove its origin.
Does eWeek's source understand the GPL? (Score:3, Informative)
Sounds as if the source doesn't understand the difference between the BSD license and the GPL.
It is only a matter of time... (Score:5, Interesting)
At the policy level, Microsoft is extremely paranoid of Open Source. At the individual developer level, the quality and depth of code reviews varries substantially from group to group. As a result, Microsoft is highly unlikely to be aware, as a company, if Open Source has penetrated its products. This presents a significant risk to shareholders.
Apple, on the other hand, has done an excellent job of integrating Open Source into their commercial product(s). They are certainly aware at the marketing level that there is a combination of Open Source and Apple code in OS X, so I assume they have a very good handle on the situation at an engineering level.
Now SCO is in the worst position. Not only do they have the same tech-industry turnover rate as companies like Apple and Microsoft to deal with, but they've changed hands repeatedly in the last decade, further randomizing the org structure. While the SCO legal team may be able to construct threatening arguments aimed at IBM, Linux and friends, they are really exposing their vulnerability to counter suit. Again, significant shareholder risk exists in SCO.
Re:It is only a matter of time... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I'd be very surprised if Microsoft used anything from Linux, considering it's actually legal and therefore far more tempting to use something from the BSDs, and there are not many features Linux has but the BSDs lack.
Sounds like enough for a lawsuit to me (Score:5, Funny)
I have warned them that I am seeking 4.2 trillion dollars in damages, plus they must give ESR a full body massage.
This seems more than reasonable to me.
Re:Sounds like enough for a lawsuit to me (Score:5, Funny)
As long as they returned it, I'm OK with it! (Score:3, Funny)
Neither a borrower nor a lender be...
SCO's goal (Score:5, Interesting)
What they actual want: Defacto or Actual CONTROL OVER LINUX.
Chris Sonntag made it completely clear when he publcly said 'we hope to get our arms around all the Linux out there' and 'there is no legal use of Linux'?
Defacto control can be achieved by establishing (at least in business people's minds) that Linux infringes their IP, but never revealing exactly how. They will simply say: Look MS settled (and yes they really were threatened with a SCO lawsuit), Look IBM settled (they might, I bet they would if SCO offered to settle for a undisclosed ($1) amount), Gartner, Aberdeen, Yankee Consulting say Linux may infringe, etc.
Full control (SCO owns Linux copyright) may be established by asserting Linux is a combination of public domain work (GPL stuff) and copyrighted SCO stuff. In other words, they want the courts to assign them OVERALL COPYRIGHT FOR LINUX. Their Legal complaint makes this 100% clear that this is their position:
Paragraphs 77 to 81 of SCO's complaint [sco.com] describe their view of "General Public License" [sic]. In Paragraph 80, read their claims on GPL copyrights (they say there aren't any). Paragraph 77 (and their general claims overall) seek to thus establish Linux is a combination of public domain and nefariously obtained proprietary SCO IP. If the court accepts this line of reasoning, we are left with the situation, where SCO will be able to claim exclusive copyright on the overall work of Linux.
Re:SCO's goal (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, I have never heard of any public domain, BSD, or GPL copyright being slurped up into a propriety product because of the proprietary product's "overriding interest", or what have you.
The problem here is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone out there know any ways around this? I would love to be corrected, because as things stand, this just looks like another case of the big guy using the legal system to screw over the little guy =(
Re:The problem here is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe someone else has standing as well (were those intimidation letters legal?) but I suspect the interesting stuff won't happen until IBM's lawyers start speaking up. They're suspiciously quiet at the moment.
GPL (Score:3, Informative)
Err... hello? If you distribute it (SCO did) it must be given back; I can't find anything in the GPL which mentions a copyright notice as an alternative.
The linked article is misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
"Did SCO Violate the GPL?"
No. If they had published Linux code as proprietary software, they have violated the copyright law.
reminds me of a story (Score:4, Funny)
After meeting up with my contact at the site, I tried to get a little more information about what kind of problem it was having. As we walked to the elevators he explained that no one really knew exactly what the box did, or if it was even in use anymore, but it was obvious that the machine was rebooting itself for no apparent reason.
We got out of the elevator at the basement level of the building. The server was sitting alone in a damp room with a concrete floor and concrete walls. I was already pretty sure it was going to be a hardware problem, since Unix boxes don't tend to reboot for absolutely no reason. I pointed out that the damp environment was undoubtedly bad for the machine.
He said, "The honest truth is, no one wants anything to do with this box. It's sitting down here because we're out of space in our server room, and the only guy that knew anything about this box quit three years ago, so we don't even know if it's doing anything useful." With that he turned and left me to figure out the problem.
The machine was plugged in, the power switch was on, but the console was blank and mashing on the keyboard didn't seem to have any affect.
As I was unscrewing the side panel from the case I started to notice that there was a really rank stench in the room. When I first entered the room I figured it was just mildew from the dampness or something, but it was really strong now. I really just wanted to get out of that dimly lit room and out into the sunlight and fresh air.
It was hard to see anything in the case, so I fumbled around inside it with my hands making sure all the internal cables were securely attached to their respective components. Suddenly I felt something squishy and slimy on my hand and jerked it out of the box.
At that instant the machine came on and began to POST. As the memory counted up, I turned the box so I could see into it by the light of the screen. Now I could see the cause of the problem. A rat had crawled into the case via an open drive bay and made a nest near one of the power supplies. She and several hairless newborns had died in there a week or two previous, and I had just stuck my hand in the middle of it all.
As I was wiping my hands off on my pants, I noticed the machine had finished booting. I was like "Ugh, gross! This thing is running SCO Unix!"
Needless to say, I marched right up to the IT offices and told them that the machine was undoubtedly no longer relevant to their business and that they should just throw the whole mess in the dumpster.
Shakespeare && his Monkeys || SCO &&am (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO copied Linux code?
Just a random, alternative explanation.
Or maybe, the same monkies they got to write Shakespear (sic) by random chance, wrote the same exact code in two different places. Let's think... the odd of randomly producing the same 1K of code have an upper-bound of about 1 in 64^1024, still not exactly zero. A Lower bound would be a big factorial expression. Ignoring the comments and differences in names and variables, most becomes VERY similar (hence OOP & patterns).
This is BSD vs AT&T all over again (Score:3, Interesting)
BSD/Linus - Yes, but guess what? you have a load of mine too
AT&T/SCO - mmm, ok, let's settle.
Please mention the source! (Score:4, Funny)
is : Copyright (c) 2003 SCO Minister of Information. All rights reserved.
Their source does not understand the GPL (Score:4, Informative)
From the article:
A source close to SCO, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told eWEEK that parts of the Linux kernel code were copied into the Unix System V source tree by former or current SCO employees.
That could violate the conditions of the GNU GPL, which states that any amendments to open-source code used in a commercial product must be given back to the community or a copyright notice must be displayed attributable to Linux, he said.
That would be the BSD license. The GPL requires a project that incorporates GPL code to be GPLed as well, which means the source must be made available to people who get binaries and their rights to distribute the program under the GPL cannot be infringed. If this does not happen the right to distribute the GPL code is revoked and its distribution is therefore a copyright violation. Therefore if SCO really stole GPL code for its Linux Kernel Personality it has a serious problem on its hands.
I don't understand (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't quite understand this. If the guy was working on the LKP project and they discovered similarity between SCO UNIX and Linux during that work, then SCO did not copy that code as part of the LKP project (although they may have copied it before). Or did he join the LKP project late and alleges that other people on the same project copied the code before he joined? Or is he saying that SCO had copied Linux source code for other reasons and they were just discovering that fact during the LKP project at SCO?
Replay (Score:4, Funny)
'I did not have sexual relations with that woman.'
'There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!'
SCO linked to terrorism? (Score:3, Funny)
We ALL have it backwards! (What's really going on) (Score:4, Funny)
From /SCOsource/ (Score:4, Interesting)
I came across another page [sco.com] with quotes from select quotes from RMS and Bruce Perens:
Richard Stallman
I consider the law prohibiting the sharing of copies with your friend the moral equivalent of Jim Crow. It does not deserve respect.
Richard Stallman, Free as in Freedom, Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software: O'Reilly (2002) at p. 72
The whole GNU project is really one big hack. It's one big act of subversive playful cleverness...
Richard Stallman, Revolution OS (DVD)
Bruce Perens
This is becoming a tradition. I go there and break the law every year in the name of free speech.
Bruce Perens, explaining his plan to demonstrate how to modify DVD technology to attendees of an Open Source convention.
We have to remember that Linux is a follow-on to UNIX. It's not just a UNIX clone. It's actually a UNIX successor.
Bruce Perens, mpulse magazine, December 2001.
As if the lawsuit were not damaging enough -- we have heard of businesses halting further Linux deployments due to these allegations and the lawsuit, we have high levels of FUD around people outside the open source software community in general, and Linux's, and perhaps even OSS's image is being tarnished, at least for now -- we have mischaracterizations of the nature of Linux in numerous ways, all out insults the hard work and ingenuity of the many developers who've contributed to give us a true alternative to proprietary computing by claiming they were incapable of performing such a task without corporate assistance (as if 80 to a few hundred lines of code out of about a million really gave Linux the boost from being "fringe" software to being a competitive alternative to the big boys, as stated in the first link of this post), and they are outright using character assassination on some OSS proponents with no shame whatsoever on their website.
Now, I'm not one to be shocked when businesses show disregard for truth and ethics, but this is quite a campaign they've got going here. I, for one, would hate to see IBM buy out SCO, as it would reward acting in this sort of fashion, not only for SCO, but for companies in similar situations in the future -- I'd much rather see them either get their pants countersued off by IBM and possibly other organizations as well, or have the judge throw out their case and give them a good censuring.
SCO should sue themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
So they claim, but install the sources from an old Cladera linux distro. Grep for Caldera and see the code they contributed. Infact they even say it's GPLed in there comments. Is it cut and pasted from Unix? I don't know I don't have the source to Unix (I don't know anyone who does? do you?). Is it the same lines that they're claiming people stole from them? I don't know that either, IANAA
Fast forward to the present and you have SCO suing IBM about getting chocolate in their peanut butter. SCO would have a much better chance of winning if they sued themselves.
SCO Used Linux Kernel Code (Score:5, Interesting)
The IP laws fundamentally work against Open Source.
Any company can extract code from an Open Source project, such as Microsoft and then incorporate it into its product.
As such, IP law protects the company from this sort of illegal appropriation because of disclosure rules governing IP law and the DMCA act.
What we need, is something akin to the BSA and SPA. A "tattel-tale" website.
SPA encourages employees to tell on thier companys if they are pirating binaries.
Why don't we have such a website that allows employees to tell on companies that pirate GNU Source Code by incorporating it into thier products, and not contributing the changes back to the community?
After all, do to the enourmous amount of corporate corruption in the US, under the table political manuevers our #1 enemy is doing, there must be a huge number of burned out pissed off Microsoft/ACME employees out there.
We only need one.
Rewards would be part of the legal settlement, should money be awarded.
-Hack
Possible Suggestion! (Score:5, Interesting)
Didn't get any bites though.
I think it would be a good idea, to bring a class action lawsuit against SCO.
I think we should use slashdot as a place to organize such a lawsuit.
For the following reasons:
1) I think technically, this lawsuit given the recent changes in management at SCO, involves fraud. That is, the companies officers know privately they do not have a case against Linux, and are fraudulently misleading thier investors/shareholders too personally enrich themselves with regards to stock price using a lawsuit to falsify product value to said shareholders/stock holders.
This is due to the recent in jump in SCO's stock price. The company simply isn't worth the current stock price, historically and is therefore artificially inflated.
2) Technically, I think, from the perspective of most Linux Kernel developers, including myself and SCO's own development group, that SCO may have abridged GNU code illegally. If this wasn't the case, I don't believe SCO would have continued to sell thier own distro after they committed the lawsuit.
The suit should include full disclosure of all SCO source code. Furthermore, seperate suits should be filed against SCO should GNU software be found in thier kernel.
3) The suit is affecting the industry, consulting firms, companies in real, economically negatively, in a measurable way. Customers are being lost, companies are having to spend money to switch, or consult legal people. This is all because of SCO's suit.
We do not need to wait to the end of this suit, we can file class action suit immediately to get damages/satisfaction.
I also believe that if we ajoin the company officers in #1, we should be able to file a seperate lawsuit against each officer of the company, and not just the company as a whole.
I think, we should use slashdot as a place to:
1) Ask people to generate documentation. Documentation of an official nature, which supports points 1-3. For example if you are a consultant, and you lost a job based on SCO's injunction and public statements, ask the customer to write a letter detailing the loss of business because SCO makes Linux too risky.
2) Internally, if you are working for a company, obtain permission to use corporate Email disclosures for any migration plans away from Linux.
3) Detail any personal damages as a result of not being able to make medical insurance payments, bankruptcies, or personal financial hardship as a result of the loss of business as a direct result of SCO's pending lawsuit and its affect on your salary/business.
I would be happy to help organize my time with regards to this, and would encourage anyone to Email from Slashdot as to how to proceed.
Please post.
Afterward, we can begin the process of selection of legal counsel once we organize.
-Gregory Carter
-CEO
-Applied Engineering Software Group
-gcarter@aesgi.com
Article doesn't add up (Score:5, Informative)
Especially to any one who worked as an engineer at SCO.
My suspicions were raised by the quote:
The source, who has seen both the Unix System V source code and the Linux source code and who assisted with a SCO project to bring the two kernels closer together, said that SCO "basically re-implemented the Linux kernel with functions available in the Unix kernel to build what is now known as the Linux Kernel Personality (LKP) in SCO Unix."
Unless they were a real newbie no engineer who worked at SCO would refer to SCO Unix because this would be internally confusing. SCO had two flavours of unix - SCO Openserver and Unixware.
LKP was really an enhancement on the basis of the lxrun application developed originally by Mike Davidson - I think Sun now doesn't some work with this - also I think it is open source. By implementing a system call trap handler you can implement a system call handling interface for our linux binaries. The LKP was really about making this system call handling and environment emulation more realistic and efficient. You don't 'necessarily' need to put parts of the linux kernel in your kernel to do this.
It is also quite suprising how much lxrun could actually do without all the LKP stuff.
I get the impression that the 'SCO source' didnt really understand how this emulation worked.
This statement is dodgy: Parts of linux were copied in to "The Unix System V tree".
Presumably this refers to OpenServer, it certainly doesn't refer to Unixware. This is inconsistent because UnixWare is OS on the LKP was implemented - and it certainly would not be refered to as Unix System V.
The facts seem a bit muddled to me. It might be that the engineer was telling truth but some facts got lost in translation - and just don't ring true to me. I left SCO before the LKP project was in full flight and I guess they would want to engineer some system calls into the kernel.
There was a lot of crap (usually ignorant or laughably incorrect) on slashdot about SCO before all of this stuff happened. But I do know that SCO had plenty of customers who were very happy with the products and that it was a great place to work.
And by the way, I and no one I've talked to since have seen any Unixware source in the Linux kernel.
Its a massive shame to me that a decent company was taken over by the bandits and shysters called Caldera. It beats me why they had change the company name back to 'SCO' before launching this pointless action.
Re:The three axis of evil: SCO, SCO & SCO (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft
SCO
RIAA/MPAA
Mike
Re:Two Words (Score:5, Insightful)
Otherwise, how do we really know who added it and when? What if it was pre Sys V code? What if the code came from Linux in the first place?
I have heard that the comments were the same, but who made the comments? Is there a name? Does he/she work for SCO?
Lot's of questions
Re:Two Words (Score:4, Informative)
I found a November 2002 article [com.com] talking about SCO, high end computing work that they had done with Compaq in the clustering arena and a brief touch on LKP.
I found a February 2001 article [vnunet.com] just about Linux and SCO integration and LKP.
I found a 2002 SCO Newsletter [wimal.com.pl] touting LKP.
I also found Simon Baldwin's resume [geocities.com] who has a long history at SCO and who was the "Lead Kernel Engineer and Architect for the Linux Kernel Personality (LKP)" from February of 2000 to "present".
So the LKP stuff was going on quite some time ago. Before or after IBM allegedly put the offending into Linux? Inquiring minds want to know.
And I vow... (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not children, and most of us know that crashing SCO's site intentionally does nothing but demonstrate that we too can be cocks.
Re:Two Words (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Two Words (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be interesting to find out, since they are claiming LINUX is holding offending code, since LINUX in this case can only refer to the kernel itself, and since Caldera released the linux kernel (on their FTP) not that long ago, how can they claim any other company is at fault for using, or distributing t
Re:Two Words (Score:5, Insightful)
The moderator who modded you "insightful" was on crack, because you completely failed to read the article. Timothy is suggesting that SCO may have copied (presumably GPLed) code from Linux into their proprietary Unix[tm]. If true, the repurcussions could be, erm, quite interesting.
As lore would have it, the original USL suit against BSD and Berkely University broke up on the rocks for a similar reason.
Re:Two Words (Score:5, Funny)
Well of course, this explains everything!
Now we know why SCO's so sure those copyright terrorists at IBM are using SCO's proprietary code in Linux! Because SCO put it there :-)
Re:Two Words (Score:3, Informative)
The original poster has a point, but it has little to do with the article. Please read the article again. This is a new claim. If substantiated, it basically constitutes a large torpedo headed in the direction of SCO.
107 words, and 133 words (Score:5, Insightful)
...and...
So... when they distributed their UNIX with the LKPM included (their "work") and that contained GPLed code, they accepted the terms of the GPL. But they have not distributed, or offered to distributed, the source to their (now GPLed, since the accepted the terms) "work".
This means that either they violated the GPL after agreeing to it. The owners of the copied code will band together and sue them for $2G, I hope, and settle for costs plus distribution of the full source of UnixWare 7 distributed as per the licence agreement SCO acceded to. Just to labour the point, they have already distributed derivative code, so halting distribution does not undo their requirement to distribute full source.
Do I need to make it simpler for you?
Hmm. No. (Score:5, Informative)
If they distribute code derived form a GPL work, they aer not BOUND by the gpl; they are BOUND by copyright law, and the copyright holders who's rights are being violated can sue. The GPL is simply something they could cite to demonstrate they had permission to do what they do.
IT's not a GPL violation, it's code theft. There is a difference.
Yes, there is a clause in the GPL that says "By distributing siad work, you accept this license"... but that can only apply if you have READ the license in the first place. So it's dodgy.
Re:Two Words (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. All this means is that SCO is guilty of a license violation.
IANAL - but I'm betting that you would have to take them to court and convince a judge that the violation was intentional ("Hey, let's use this GPL code!"), willful ("Yah. We can just ignore the license."), and pervasive ("Sure, why not - the VP of development and legal already said that's fine.") Otherwise, SCO can just claim that the inclusion of the GPL'd code was a "misunderstanding" between a long-gone developer and a long-gone manager, neither of whom had the authority to make this kind of decision on behalf of the company.
Even if you got past that hurdle, I expect that you'd have to explicitly request that the code for the past versions be placed under the GPL as part of the settlement, and SCO would probably value the code so highly ("One billion dollars, your honor!") that any order to GPL the code would give SCO a good chance to get that aspect of the ruling either thrown out or reduced on appeal.
Re:Two Words (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL doesn't count because violating it essentially voids it leaving you with copyright law for distributing terms. (You can't, but if you do, you have to pay thousands per copy.)
If SCO had not been trying to screw over the Linux community, this would probably be, small cash settlement, an apology and stop using the code, as it is the copyright holders are probably not going to want to be nice.
Re:Two Words (Score:4, Funny)
How else? an Intel source was quoted saying
Re:Two Words (Score:5, Funny)
they're even willing to show you how they created it!
# cat
Re:The other way ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The other way ... (Score:3, Informative)
You can assign a date for when a line entered linux pretty easily, you just search the kernel list archives. Since they're public and mirrored sufficiently they can be considered reliable - even if someone wanted to fake them it would be impossible to get away with it. You can set a date on calderas end but less easily, because you must have a check - they can fake anything they want since it's proprietary code. Esse
Re:Proving the code (Score:4, Informative)
Seems to me that even compiling it to prove the binaries are identical will be difficult, whether you are compiling SCO or Linux code.
Re:Fuck SCO (Score:3, Funny)
Considering the /. crowd, I'm surprised this wasen't modded up +5 Insightful ;)
--LordKaT
-1: doesn't understand the GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
Challenging the GPL in court is on a hiding to nothing.
Re:YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS! (Score:5, Informative)
The SCO code in question was in the process of being written and could not yet have been copied into the Linux kernel unless someone on the Linux team had a time machine. I repeat, the article is about a SCO engineer encountering supposedly NEW SCO code that appeared to have been cribbed from already existing Linux code.
Please re-read the following quote from the article and evaluate how it fits with your interpretation of the article:
This is not about old SCO code finding its way into Linux, this is about supposedly new SCO code written to implement Linux kernel functions that looked suspiciously like code taken straight out of existing versions of Linux.
You're misunderstanding the article. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, this is what the unnamed "source close to SCO" says he was doing -- re-implementing certain Linux kernel APIs in the UnixWare kernel. And you're correct that that's perfectly legal.
But what he's saying is that while he and the other programmers on the project were implementing the LKP, they discovered that portions of the UnixWare kernel were already very similar to portions of the Linux kernel -- to the point of having identical variable names (presumably non-trivial ones), etc. In other words, although the LKP project is perfectly legal, this anonymous source says that while working on it, he and the other programmers on the project uncovered evidence of prior code-copying by SCO.
TheFrood
Re:Congratulation on a USA today reading level! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Congratulation on a USA today reading level! (Score:5, Interesting)
Now it's possible some coders in the mid nineties decided to beef up SCO's unix by copying code over from Linux, but why? It would break backwards compatibility. And similarly, why would these functions change much from the beginning of Linux? They probably did not. So unless SCO's code got into Linux from the near beginning, I think it is much more likely that BSD is the common descendant.
Re:Point 81 have you read your EULA today (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's the license:
LIMITED WARRANTY
Caldera Systems warrants that upon Your receipt of the Product and for a period of 90 calendar days thereafter, the media, if any, on which the Software is embedded will be free of defects in material and workmanship under normal use. Caldera Systems does not warrant that (i) the Software and any related Updates will be free of defects, (ii) the Software will satisfy all of Your requirements or (iii) the use of the Software will be uninterrupted or error-free.
In case of breach of warranty related to the quality of the media, You must return at Your expense and no later than 10 days after the expiration of the warranty period, the Product to Caldera Systems or its local authorized representative, together with a copy of Your dated Proof of Purchase. Caldera Systems or its representative will replace any defective media, or if not practicable, may terminate this Agreement and refund to You the amount paid for the Product. You acknowledge that this Paragraph sets forth Your exclusive remedy and Caldera Systems' exclusive liability for any breach of warranty or other duty related to the quality of the Product.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
Except for the caldera systems warranty set out above, or otherwise expressly provided in a separate agreement with caldera systems or your supplier, all warranties, terms, conditions, representations, indemnities and guarantees with respect to the software, whether express or implied, arising by law, custom, prior oral or written statements by caldera systems, its licensors or representatives or otherwise (including, but not limited to any warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or any implied warranty of non-infringement of third party intellectual property rights) are hereby overridden, excluded and disclaimed. Some states or countries do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties, so the above exclusion may not apply to you. This warranty gives you specific legal rights and you may also have other rights which vary from state to state or country to country.
Under no circumstances will caldera systems or its licensors or representatives be liable for any consequential, indirect, special, punitive, or incidental damages, whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, based on your claims or those of your customers (including but not limited to, claims for loss of data, goodwill, profits, use of money or use of the products, interruption in use or availability of data, stoppage of other work or impairment of other assets), arising out of breach or failure of express or implied warranty, breach of contract, misrepresentation, negligence, strict liability in tort or otherwise, except only in the case of personal injury where and to the extent that applicable law requires such liability. In no event will the aggregate liability which caldera systems or its licensors may incur in any action or proceeding exceed the total amount actually paid by you for the specific product that directly caused the damage.
Some jurisdictions do not allow the limitation of exclusion of liability for indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages so the above limitation may not apply to you.