My Visit to SCO 592
Ian Lance Taylor writes "I signed the SCO NDA and visited them to discuss their claims against Linux. My essay about it is on the Linux Journal web site. The short version is that SCO's claims are unproven, as indeed I expected would be the case before I went. The amount of information they were willing to show me was extremely limited, and
did not by itself prove that their claims were true, nor that their claims were false." Other SCO-bits: Sun is doing their usual foot-in-mouth routine, thinking that two FUDs makes a Solaris purchase, or something like that. IBM is now joining the contact the customers bandwagon. Eric Raymond has been keeping himself busy - here's a story about him. SCO hates BSD, too, but they're not taking it lying down. And of course Cringley has his two cents.
NDA (Score:5, Funny)
It doesn't stand for "Now Divulge All".
-S
Re:NDA (Score:2)
Re:NDA (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than post a separate comment...
There is a rather blatant contradiction in SCO's case. SCO claims that incorporation of licensed System V source code in Linux has diminished the value of "Unixware" or whatever they are now calling their semi-unsupported/unmaintained version of Unix that they are no longer able to sell at a profit. However, they have had to mount a FUD campaign against IBM's supported and maintained version of System V Unix that is based on the same licensed code and that IBM continues to sell at a profit. It would seem that the ability to sell a proprietary System V Unix operating system has more to do with keeping it maintained, current, and supported and less on the possible inclusion of some snippet of code in Linux. Otherwise, why is it that IBM can still make money selling AIX? If the infringement were really the reason why a proprietar Linux can't be sold, how is it that AIX (and Solaris, too, for that matter) aren't affected by it but SCO's is?
BAM! (Score:5, Interesting)
Great point. Also, weren't they GIVING their ancient linux away until very recently? It's hard to give something away then claim trade secret. Although I'm not sure that covers all their claims, as they tend to jump around a lot.
Similarly, I would bring up the old "If linux copied SMP from you, how come they're so much better at it?" routine. OpenLinux flat sucks, and that's all there is to it.
It's also fun to hear them interpret the GPL. They seem to think that, since IBM put their code into the GPL, that this prevents their code from actually BEING GPL'd...even if THEY release linux too! Something must be in the water in Utah.
How many times? (Score:5, Informative)
They seem to think that, since IBM put their code into the GPL, that this prevents their code from actually BEING GPL'd...even if THEY release linux too!
Look. There is an untainted kernel release, let's call it K. It's various parts are copyrighted by various contributors, and the whole thing is licensed under the GPL.
There are a few patches that went into the next version. Let's call those A, B and C. Their copyrights are held by private individuals and licensed to Linus under the GPL (when they sent the patches in).
There is also a contribution by IBM. Let's assume SCO are telling the truth, and IBM based part of this work on SCO's IP. Let's call this S.
Now, it's perfectly feasible that the contract between SCO and IBM allows IBM to incorporate S into their closed-source products.
By default, this would not allow IBM to incorporate S into a GPLed product, since the GPL covering the rest of the software would have to apply to the derivative work as a whole, and IBM can't just relicense S at will.
So, when IBM sends those patches off to Linus, they cannot offer the code freely.
When Linus releases the next version of the kernel, he has incorporated K, A, B, C and S into a derivative work. Let's call this K++.
K++ is distributed in the normal fashion. The GPL is slapped all over it, and all sorts of different vendors incorporate this into their products. SCO is one of these vendors.
Despite this, the GPL does not apply to K++. Linus has no right to release K++ under the GPL, nor even freely offer copies. He's not the sole copyright holder of K, and he doesn't hold the copyrights to A, B or C either. He has to abide by the GPL - which means that the derivative work as a whole is either under the GPL, or cannot be freely distributed (unless he works out licensing with every single kernel contributor, a logistical improbability).
Since IBM cannot offer S under the GPL, Linus cannot offer K++ under the GPL, and any license SCO had to offer K++ under the GPL is void. They are infringing on the copyrights of everybody who contributed to K++ when they distribute it.
Now, just because the original IP was theirs, it doesn't mean they can arbitrarily reinstate that license for K++. They have to go back to their original contract with IBM to set the whole chain up again. Otherwise, they would have to obtain all the changes (A B and C) between K and K++ to "branch" the kernel. Remember, they can't obtain them directly from K++, as that is not licensed under the GPL. They have to go around and pick up the pieces, many of which will have just gone straight to Linus' inbox and will not be available to them. Remember, they need valid licenses to these bits under the GPL. Just to make matters worse, they would have to do the same for each new version of the kernel (as, according to them, the subsequent derivative works, (K++)++ and ((K++)++)++, cannot be licensed under the GPL. We can basically assume that they cannot do this.
So, we have to ask which is the best option, in SCO's eyes? Cease production of their unprofitable Linux distribution, admit to copyright infringement against a bunch of kernel hackers who are unlikely to bring suit against them, and be able to sue IBM for billions of dollars? Or grant IBM the contract so they can keep the Linux distribution, sit back and watch their business fade away?
None of this is contrary to the GPL. However appalling it seems to us, remember that their board of directors have an obligation to their shareholders to maximise profits (or risk due diligence lawsuits). This is a massive get-out option for their Linux division that they are taking advantage of (and attempting to bail out the rest of the company with).
Of course, this all depends on the crucial axiom that IBM screwed up, which I think is unlikely, especially from SCO's actions regarding this lawsuit. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the GPL is not at all a problem for SCO here.
Re:NDA (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple, SCO does not sell hardware. IBM wouldn't sell 10 copies of AIX a year if it wasn't for the RS/6000's they run on. Similar situation for Solaris. After all, WHO has a successful Unix that doesn't sell it as part of an integral system?
Re:NDA (Score:3, Informative)
So, what you're really saying.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:NDA (Score:3)
BSDI of course.
Re:NDA (Score:5, Interesting)
For crying out loud (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For crying out loud (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For crying out loud (Score:4, Funny)
-Your pals at SCO
Re:For crying out loud (Score:3, Insightful)
If they actually showed what the code is they would in effect remov the 'cloud of doubt'. We would know exactly what is going on. Because we have access to all the previous versions. We can figure out who did what. We c
Re:For crying out loud (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we please change the category for Caldera (Score:5, Funny)
Bored (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bored (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that is the worse thing IBM could possibly do. First, that is exactly what SCO wants (to be purchased to save the sinking ship). Second, that would (in some ways) admit guilt on IBM's part, making them look bad, and justifying further retarded lawsuits. Third, it's the principal of the matter. SCO *SHOULD* take this to court so they can loose, and IBM can counter sue for damages. Now that would be a win win.
My 2 Paseo's
Re:Bored (the settlement terms) (Score:5, Funny)
As a finale, they settle out of court with SCO for the counter-damages. IBM gets SCO. Make Sontag and McBride sign 3 year employment agreements. Maybe they assign them as security guards to the building where all of the Linux work is done. So that every day, all of the Linux people can snicker at them as they come into the building. You know, take their hat and play keep-away, put kick me signs on their backs, etc. Or perhaps they make them walk around town in Penguin suits handing out IBM Linux promo material. Make them attend Open Source conventions in a dunk tank. The possibilities are endless!
Doesn't help me now though, does it. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure giving SCO lots of money to go away sends the right message, but until they go away, it's complicating my proposals. *BSD is a subject I've wanted to bring up for some time, looks like that may be our new direction, at least until SCO goes away. This annoys me mightily, again more for reaso
Re:Bored (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bored (Score:3, Funny)
Even if IBM buy SCO (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Bored (Score:3, Insightful)
1: SCO approaches IBM to get bought
2: IBM refuses
3: SCO sues IBM for
4: IBM complains but does not want to pay
5: SCO targets more and more Linux, which is a good way to pressure IBM
6: IBM still refuses, people ask where is the evidence
7: SCO does not want to show obvious evidence
It is in SCO's best interest to not say what's supposedly copied in Linux, because they want to get bought by IBM; they hope that:
8: IBM seeing its Linux business threatened buys
Re:Bored (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO: 60M in revenue last year, lost 25M.
IBM: 80B in revenue last year, GP of 30B.
IBM: Some of the *best* IP lawyers in the world (given their patent database, they've got good people to defend it).
Sorry, if Linux sales are threatened, they're at the tuppenny, ha'penny levels. Not on an enterprise scale.
Dude you're going to jail (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dude you're going to jail (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment Misspelled (Score:5, Interesting)
Or better yet, Ian Taylor can just tell us the name of the file.
Re:Comment Misspelled (Score:2, Funny)
this is an open source project you're talking about, so there are two possible scenarios:
Commercial grade spell checkers will end up as your top resource utilization process(es).
open source spell checkers will find "no misteaks" [sic].
Re:Comment Misspelled (Score:5, Funny)
Hey! I found it!
-- arch/sparc/kernel/head.S
There it is! The offending... uh... SPARC... uh... nevermind.
Re:Comment Misspelled (Score:4, Funny)
So noooh, LINUS put it there, not SCO!
Besides that, I have no IDEA what the code is talking about
(Although I must say it only gets better later on:
Found the misspelling. (Score:5, Funny)
This sure doesn't look good.
SCO and other Software companies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mac OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What does the NDA encompass? (Score:5, Informative)
-j
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What does the NDA encompass? (Score:3, Insightful)
Go Sun! (Score:2)
In the news , tonight !!! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1018669.
Gosh !!!
*SUN GPLed SOLARIS*
lol 8p
The story travels east ... (Score:5, Funny)
Eric Raymond
Revision 1.16 2003-06-03 esr
Japanese translation available.
At first, residents of Oahu and Maui idly dismissed the SCO rumors as nonsense.
Excellent article. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, there's a large discrepancy in some of SCO's claims. There are two scenarios here, which are not mutually exclusive:
1. Linux source code incorporated original SysV code, due to formerly wide distribution of this code (e.g. in Solaris), textbook examples, or sloppiness of contributors from large vendors. This would be theft of code that SCO legally owns the copyright to.
2. Technologies developed by other companies as add-ons to SysV were incorporated into Linux. This is not copyright infringement at all, but violates contracts signed by the original parties.
SCO is clearly claiming (2), and if the contract holds up they may be partially correct (in the sense that IBM fucked up, but not in their wild accusations against the Linux community). I didn't get a clear impression from the article if they're seriously claiming (1) as well. They've stated as much in the past, but the only specific basis for the lawsuit that they've mentioned so far is the incorporation of novel technologies that were not developed by AT&T/SCO.
Re:Excellent article. (Score:4, Interesting)
There is more to Technologies developed by other companies as add-ons to SysV were incorporated into Linux. This is not copyright infringement at all, but violates contracts signed by the original parties. than just that.
To be specific, SCO is claiming that the addons are a "derivative work" of System V.
Consider the definition of "derivative work" found in Title 17 of the U.S. code:
A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''.
From this definition it appears that for something to be a "derivative work" it would need to be substantially the same overall work as the original work.
In other words, a "derivative work" of an operating system would itself be an operating system or something functioning largely as an operating system. Or it could be code copied from the original operating system into another operating system.
The original work is still there in some form as a part of the derivative work.
In this case, the RCU code developed by Sequent, the JFS code regardless of whether it is the original AIX version or the original OS/2 version, and any other code developed directly by IBM, Sequent, or other sources apart from AT&T/Novell/SCO are not by themselves derivative works because they do not embody anything close to the original work.
They are not a recasting, a transformation, or an adaptation of the original work.
They are not derived from the original work.
They do not embody the original work.
They do not contain the original work or elements of the original work.
They are not revisions of the original work.
They are the modifications that can be applied to the original work to produce a derivative work.
SCO's definition of "derivative work" does not match up at all with any notion I hold about what is and what is not a derivative work.
Sealab 2021? (Score:4, Funny)
So... This SCO, no - Caldera... it must be... A DOPPELGANGER! Listen not to it's LIES! It was PRETENDING to help people, oh yes, and it's PRETENDING to give away it's software, but all the while, it was really laughing - hahaha! - but I know where they really came from!
*The sealab suddenly explodes, when it's Unixware license unexpectedly expires*
Ryan Fenton
Linux, BSD. How about Minix? (Score:5, Funny)
I asked the SCO director here in the Netherlands and although he said they had no plans to sue Tanenbaum, he didn't want to rule it out either...
Wait... (Score:4, Interesting)
Theoretically, under this model, the descendents of Johann Gutenberg now get to sue every book publisher in the world for not paying them royalties on the IP of printable-format books. Wow. Time to hit the family tree records!
I say buyout... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Re:I say buyout... (Score:3, Funny)
Nah, Bill gates should buy them out, boys. [snpp.com]
Don't reward them (Score:5, Insightful)
Two Things (Score:5, Interesting)
The biggie: SCO basically is arguing that any code developed on top of Unix is a derivative work of Unix.
If you developed on Unix, and then went to Linux and did something similiar a few years down the line, with the benefit of hindsight yet with the same goals in mind, you probably did one of two things: recoded the section from memory, or, recoded a part of it using what you remembered plus possibly a better method that you had learned through sheer experience. SCO wants to claim rights to that experience. So no matter where you go from this day forward, if you happen to code the same thing in a *nix-like operating system, and they see the same algorithm (because, for example, the one you came up with couldn't be improved on), they should get a chunk of that.
Next: SCO said it has no current program [for Linux Licensing]. It hopes to come up with something in which noncommercial use and educational use would be free, but for commercial use it wants some remuneration. SCO said it hadn't come up with a plan because it still is trying to figure out the scale of the problem.
Did anyone else cringe as soon as they read the term "Linux Licensing", which preceded that paragraph?
"the scale of the problem" is an easy way of saying "finding every corporate customer on Redhat, Lindows, SUSE, and every other distro's books and sending them OUR Linux Licensing agreement."
This is so painful to watch. The company wants to say that anyone with a good idea cannot port that idea years later. That they own it. That even if that programmer kept a chunk of the code they once wrote, because they knew they couldn't remember it line-per-line, and copied it into a kernel module, that they own the rights to it.
More or less, if you've ever worked for Company A, coded something for them, found a very unique and exceptional way of, say, saving a compressed binary file, and you save that chunk of code for later use, and use it in free, GPL'd, software, then Company A has the right to sue you for violating their Intellectual Property. That, to me, is wrong. Even if the comments are the same. Even if the algorithm is the same.
Welcome to the grey area of black and white operating systems. What a terrible place to be.
Re:Two Things (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not the issue in this case. SCO is reaching further. If I read the article correctly, SCO are claiming that code written by IBM engineers, at IBM in fact belongs to SCO, because that work done by IBM is a derivative work of Unix.
So let's say you're a software developer at IBM. You add feature X to the Unix code IBM bought from SCO. Many other developers do the same, and eventually you call this heavily modified Unix "AIX". Some years later, IBM starts working on the Linux kernel, a GPL'ed piece of software. Feature X is missing from the Linux kernel, so naturally they ask you to do the same feature for Linux. Now, what SCO is saying is that for you to add this feature to Linux is not legal. This is why SCO is suing IBM for 3 billion dollars. They believe that the AIX kernel is an entirely derivative work of Unix, and thus the rights to AIX belong to them, and to copy any features from AIX to Linux, even those features developed fully under the payroll of IBM, is copyright infringement.
Of course, this is utter nonsense. I sincerely hope IBM makes a strong legal case and gets this whole thing dismissed from the courts. No settlement, I want SCO to lose. Then we'll all munch on popcorn as we watch them crash and burn.
If SCO wins this, then any enhancement you add to a piece of software will be owned by the original author of said software, not you. The chilling effects would be immense.
-Mani
Re:Two Things (Score:3, Interesting)
My question is that if the work is implemented
ESR's search (Score:3, Interesting)
About Damned Time (Score:4, Funny)
I know how to solve this. (Score:3, Funny)
Then all the problems would be solved. RIAA getting you down? Whap! Don't like SCO? Splat! Microsoft is unfair? ...Bwannng! Think CowboyNeal should be president? Biff! (Yes, the OCS would always make a comical noise when it acts.)
Why the Hating on Sun? (Score:3, Insightful)
You havent seen Sun say "We arent doing Madhatter anymore" or "We're not going to be reselling Redhat anymore"
They are saying, "Use Solaris instead of AIX because we have all the rights to Solaris" What, you think IBM wouldnt be doing the same thing if SCO came after Sun? Jeez, nearly makes you think that
Why worried about IBM's patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is the author worried about IBM pulling out its patent portfolio and beating down SCO? As I understand patents, you don't have to enforce them with all parties. IBM has a current interest, and investment, in Linux so why would anyone by worried that IBM beating SCO to death with patents would mean IBM would then turn the patents on Linux?
KhyronLady Caldera (Score:5, Funny)
Lady Caldera
(to the tune of the Beatles' "Lady Madonna")
Lady Caldera, stock price at your feet.
Wonder how you'll manage to make ends meet.
Who has the money? How you pay the rent?
Did you think that UNIX trademark was heaven sent?
Wednesday morning news just like a bombshell.
We all watch their stock drop like a rock.
Caldera has learned kiss its arsecheeks goodbye.
See how they run.
Lady Caldera, IP fakes confess!
Wonder how you'll manage to keep up this jest.
See how they run.
Lady Caldera, lying in the press,
Blackmailing the righteous ones, in your duress.
Wednesday afternoon is never ending.
Thursday morning news will be as bad.
Thursday night your stocks, they will need mending.
See how they run.
Lady Caldera, stock price at your feet.
Wonder how you'll manage to make ends meet.
Prefer to be informed... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why I'm Not Really Worried... (Score:5, Insightful)
From Cringely's article:
IBM has the largest legal department of any company in the world. They are INCREDIBLY sensitive about IP ownership, which produces for them more than $1.5 billion per year in license fees. They have embraced the GPL very carefully for their Linux work. The very fact that this code was released under the GPL indicates it was vetted and found acceptable by the IBM legal department. It's not like sometimes they don't bother to go through this procedure.
Sometimes, stickup artists like SCO pick the wrong victim...
Re:Why I'm Not Really Worried... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why I'm Not Really Worried... (Score:3, Insightful)
What surprises me is that SCO has escalated the stakes to the point where IBM can't settle, because if they do, that's a massive public admission of error. Wh
Re:Why I'm Not Really Worried... (Score:3, Insightful)
Great quote from the essay:
For SCO to attack IBM using IP is somewhat like trying to eat a live tiger
Buyouts (why MS or anyone hasn't done it yet) (Score:4, Interesting)
And IBM could afford to do it and might even still have enough money to buy a G8 country. OK, that's an exaggeration, but if Red Hat could afford it, IBM certainly could. Apple could. And Microsoft could.
And this leads one to ask: why haven't they? If MS really thought SCO had a smoking gun to put straight through Linux's heart, don't you think they'd do it in a second? They're willing to dump millions on software licensing and lobbying not to lose to Linux in the public sector and large coroporate installations. A cool $130 Million that could knock Linux development flat for 5-10 years would be an easy investment for them.
But they don't do it. Very curious. So how compelling is that case again?
Re:Buyouts (why MS or anyone hasn't done it yet) (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Buyouts (why MS or anyone hasn't done it yet) (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm also in agreement with those who think that SCO is going to try to drag this out as long as possible, because the sooner the court date the sooner they have to put their cards on the table, and from the reports I've seen, they've got squat.
Media is taking SCO's claim toooo seriously (Score:4, Insightful)
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/06/16.html
stupid media should realize this case is lion vs. fly, and media is being used by SCO the fly as a vehicle to spread FUD. IBM and Linux have already suffered substantial damages from this baseless accusation. someone should do something to stop this nonsense.
I'm just hoping that the sleeping lion will soon stand up and smash the obnoxious fly into ditch. then I will applaud.
Derivative Works (Score:4, Informative)
But this is just the part of SCO's argument that doesn't make any sense. IBM's original license from AT&T contains an amendment to the effect that any derivative works developed by IBM belong to IBM. This is a direct quote from the letter of amendment (Exhibit C in SCO's complaint filed with the court):
Regarding Section 2.01, we [AT&T] agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you [IBM] are owned by you.
The later agreement between IBM, SCO, and Novell specifies that, after a one-time payment from IBM to SCO, IBM has a fully paid-up, permanent, and irrevocable license.
Here's my take on what's going on here. I had a look at SCO's 10-Q filing with the SEC. It seems they are being sued over alleged securities fraud in connection with their IPO. I also noted from the Form 4 filings (insider transactions) that several of the senior people have been selling the stock in the last couple of months. I think this "litigation by press release" is all about trying to pump up the stock so the rats can get off the sinking ship.
(BTW, if you want to look at the agreements, they're on SCO's Web site [sco.com].)
Awesome paragraph from LinuxJournal (Score:4, Insightful)
Bingo. As a Linux distributor, SCO was looking at Linux source code. SCO was also developing UnixWare. Now SCO's argument is that because you have access to the Unix source, anything you write into Linux is necessarily a derivative of Unix. So likewise, because SCO had access to the Linux source, anything they develop in UnixWare is a derivative of Linux. Oh, dear, I guess UnixWare is GPL now.
Re:UnixWare is GPL now??? (Score:4, Informative)
The original poster wasn't spreading FUD, they were laughing at the catch 22 they've gotten themselves into.
Derivatives and the Law (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now, loading a dynamic library (but probably not loading an executable), and perhaps running on an OS (unless the licence allows this, as Linux's does), and statically linking, may all constitute creating a derivative work (IANAL). This uncertainty is a bad thing, and I think it would be better if the only way you could make a derivative work would by making a work that includes the original source code, not object code, output, etc.
Suppose IBM added something (b) to SCO's code(a), and SCO has a contract that they own derivative works (a+x). I think SCO then owns the derivative work (a+b), but if IBM wants to put it's code (b) in something else (c), SCO certainly doesn't own (c+b), because they had no part in it's creation, and (a) is not a part of it. Code can't be a derivative unless it includes what it derives from (in original or translated form).
What SCO is really afraid of. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd bet a all the money I have that if that "offending" code was revealed tonight we'd have it all rewritten by Monday morning. The Linux community is more angry about this than anything that has ever touched it. All that anger would be unleached in an orgy of coding the likes of which even God has not seen.
SCO is afraid the reason for thier lawsuit will vanish is they reveal their hand.
"[SCO] feels large chunks are derivative. It argued that even a full replacement would be in part based on the prior effort, and thus would itself be derivative, at least under the terms of the IBM contract."
Sorry. no. It'd be easy to get around this. You tell me what code infriges and I'll post the input and expected output from that code (without even revealing where the code is). Any programmer who independently writes code that meets those requirements has NOT infringed SCO's licences.
Re:What SCO is really afraid of. (Score:3, Insightful)
My personal analysis (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO is saying: any "modifications" or "derivative works" must be kept as part of the "SOFTWARE PRODUCT" (the SVR4 source code) in other words, kept confidential
IBM has taken the SVR4 code (the "SOFTWARE PRODUCT"), combined it with new, independently developed code and created a new work (let's call this "AIX"). That clearly makes "AIX" a derivative work, but does it also make the added code part of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT? In other words, if you start with "A" and "B" (which are independently developed items) combine them together to form "C", this makes "C" a derivative of both "A" and "B", but SCO's argument is that it also makes "B" a derivative of "A".
On the other hand, the amendment (exhibit C) clearly spells out that IBM owns code that it develops or is developed for it. The question is, does this cover code developed by Sequent? I think so, but IANAL.
I think SCO's argument is: "you own it, but we control it" In other words, although ownership is with IBM, the confidentiality requirements still apply.
So SCO has to convince a jury that:
1. Independently developed code is part of the "SOFTWARE PRODUCT".
2. Even though IBM "owns" the code, SCO controls it. Since we are talking about IP and the only benefit of ownership of IP is control, this is going to be a very difficult argument.
Now, as to the injunction against AIX -- exhibit D clearly states that IBM's license is irrevokable, but Novell and SCO that does not stop Novell and SCO from enforcing their rights against IBM. The way I read this is that SCO can now ONLY get an injuction to stop any specific infringing behaviour. In other words, they cannot get an injuction against AIX, but only a much narrower injunction. Even if IBM is somehow infringing on SCO's license agreement by distributing AIX, once IBM fixes the infringement, IBM can resume distributing AIX. If SCO can prove any infringing behaviour, they may also get damages.
SCO also has some other problems in their case. Notably that enforcement of their contracts has been lax over the years.
What does this mean for Linux? Well, as I see it, it means that, assuming the disputed code is code that is owned by IBM, there is no way SCO can come after third parties. IBM has copyright on the code and once released publically, is no longer a trade secret. In other words, even if SCO might get damages, they cannot exert any further control over the code.
Sun is simply mean-spirited (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact is that SCO is a mad dog biting everyone in site. What Sun is doing -- saying 'See, this dog hasn't bitten me yet! Good doggy!'.
Reaction on my posting was rather hilarious. Seems like all the responses came from Sun sockpuppets. The most intelligent response was 'Linux is for script kiddies'. In fact I even didn't mention LInux in my posting.
Funny, I have solid Sun experience, starting from Sun/OS 4.1.3 when it was BSD-based, before they move to Solaris 2.x (System V based), and I considered and still consider their product rather solid (Sun/OS 4.1.3 and 4.1.4, and SOlaris 2.5+), but frankly, I believe they've just lost the sense of directions, and unfortunately, taking advantage of current situation *is* the only business plan they apparently have. Sic transit gloria mundi.
The real reason SCO won't show code... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then the judge would look at SCO and say, "Ok, so what's the problem now?"
-Adam
beware of Sun (Score:3, Interesting)
Altogether, I'm not surprised at this action by Sun. What continually surprises me is that people view Sun as some kind of friend to open source software. The company is built on making open source software (Berkeley UNIX) proprietary, influential Sun employees like Gosling have a bad history with the open source movement, and Sun would like nothing more than to see Linux go away. One's enemy's enemy is not necessarily one's friend.
If the open source community isn't careful, what is happening with SCO and Linux now will happen with Sun and open source Java efforts in a few years. Sun will go down the drain, like SCO, they will get desparate, and they will almost certainly not disappear without lawsuits.
A Solution! (Score:4, Funny)
Clearing the m(F)ud (Score:4, Interesting)
1.It takes someone involved with OSS to finally paint a somewhat clear picture of what this whole issue is about.
2.SCO seems to have some knowledge from the Monterrey project that IBM developers that were working there later became involved in Linux. To me this is perhaps the only real case SCO has got. They would have known who was developing on the IBM side and by scanning the Linux kernel mailing list might have seen those same names turn up. Hence SCO's case. However for SCO to actually prove anything beyond conjecture -which isn't admissible in court- will prove extremely difficult, as the author says. The presented code that SCO has been showing the NDA signees is possibly taken form Unix (SysV) or AIX but is very likely to be some sort of common use code that exists in just about every OS known. If the code is a ubiquitous as the author feels, then it is likely that the court will not rule in SCO's favour. That would be the death knell for SCO because it would open the doors for just about everyone on the earth to sue SCO for issues ranging from code theft to harrasment.
3.SCO is mainly creating a fog of war in order to frighten people, just as IBM is claiming.
4.I am less worried know than I was before I read the article.
The worst possible outcome, is that, with the current US government using the fear of terrorism weapon as an excuse to invade countries, ruin the economy, support corrupt corporations, that the court would in fact rule in SCO's favour. The outcome of that would almost certainly be that IBM will use it's patents to sue SCO on hundreds of accounts and will certainly appeal the case until it gets to the supreme court. I am pretty sure that SCO would eventually lose, but the damage to OSS in the USA would be done. The court procedings will have minimal effect outside the the USA. I am pretty sure that no European court will give any chance to SCO of winning a case against an OS that was origionally developed in Finland and is a major source of income in Germany (SuSE). It would be interesting in this case to see if a software split would occur, with software developement in the USA totally encumbered by legal issues, leaving only Microsoft able to peddle it's wares with success there, and OSS taking over outside the USA . Of course this is only conjecture and speculation.
Ack. (Score:5, Interesting)
Ugh.. Altix is Itanium (AKA ia64.) This sounds very much like the code I pointed out yesterday. (ate_utils.c in Linux -vs- malloc.c in versions of Unix up to at least System3)
A couple of things people have pointed out about why the example I found should be legit:
(1) It's in BSD... No, I'm no expert on BSD history but from what I've read the settlement happened between BSD 4.3 and 4.4. Anything prior to 4.4 probably doesn't count since the whole reason BSD won is that they had rewritten all of the code. BSD3 contains pretty much an exact copy of malloc.c from Sys3, but the version in 4.2 looks newer than the version SGI used. I'd assume it's even more different in BSD 4.3 and 4.4.
(2) The code is common knowledge. This same form of malloc has been around longer than the C language. This sounds good, but it's hard to believe the code was written independently. The comments, structure, and variable names seem a bit too much to be coincidence.
(3) Caldera released the code for all versions of Unix prior to and including Sys3 under a BSD-style license. This is definitely the best argument, but SGI didn't include a "(c)Caldera 2001" in the file. The dates in SGI's copyright statment in that file are also out of line with the date of the Caldera offer, and it's easy to show that ate_utils.c was around prior to 23 Jan 2002. (Check the 2.4.17 ia64 port on Kernel.org)
The real question is why would SGI use versions of malloc and free that trace their lineage all the way back to 1973 Bell Labs when there are untainted, free, and better written versions of these functions available.
Re:Ack. (Score:3, Interesting)
Just a couple corrections:
The settlement happened between BSD 4.4 and BSD 4.4-LITE
The reason BSD "won" is because UC-Berkeley countersued on the basis that large chunks of BSD were incorporated in System V with stripped copyrights and without fulfilling the requirements of the advertising clause. The judge suggested that ATT didn't have a case, and Berkeley did. Meanwhile, Nov
Ho. Lee. Crap. (Score:3, Interesting)
atefree and atealloc are verbatim copies of UNIX 6th Edition's malloc and free. The only changes are mapping the ancient C compilerism "=+" to "+=", some comment changes, some ASSERTs, and a spinlock. The code is undeniably copied.
looking for "substantially identical" code (Score:4, Funny)
Fry: Four identical castles!
Bender: Each more identical than the last!!
-
My favorite quote: (Score:3, Funny)
SCO's "experts" have also found sections of code which SCO believes have been obfuscatedâ"where the order of code execution has been rearranged in a direct attempt to hide its SCO pedigree.
SCO has a pedigree? SCO is like one of those mule clones. Whichever way you look at it, it's an abomination.
These people are nothing less than pirates (Score:4, Interesting)
What SCO want to do is invalidate all existing Unix licenses so that all Unix rights revert to SCO. By then arguing that ALL Unix-like code is a derivative work they will claim that all unix-like code, no matter who wrote it, is actually SCOs.
By this means SCO hopes to profit from the work of hundreds of thousands of coders who worked for no pay on the original AT&T Unix, BSD Unix, Linux etc as well as all the commercial developement done by IBM, HP, SGI etc etc.
But SCOs entire argument is based on the "trade secret" that is the Unix sources. If anyone can show that SCO and previous owners of the rights to Unix sources have NOT taken care of their trade secret, SCO has NO case whatsoever. This is what ESR is doing right now by gathering evidence that Unix source code was widely available to people who did not sign any NDA at the time.
Fortunately, it's almost trival to discover evidence that Unix code has been widely available during the 1990s. Many commercial releases of Unix back then included source. For example, Amdahls UTS was a Unix for the IBM390 including multiprocessor support that was distributed widely with the sources in
BTW I suspect that it was Fujitsu, not SUN, that was the other big unix company that recently bought a license from SCO...
Other way around (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess I find this whole thing kinda scary, but for a different reason.
If any time you look at another peice of code, and then code something similar you are making a dirivative work - how much proprietary software should be covered by the GPL? This would mean that because I studied how Linux did scheduling, I couldn't ever work with any type of scheduling ever without GPLing it. It could even be taken to mean that anyone who has ever looked at GPL'd code could never develop proprietary software!
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that all of this has some scary consequences - not just for Linux. Sounds like I need to get a Law degree and work for the FSF, that's where the real money is going to be in the future :)
Isn't this "derivative work" argument a bit rich? (Score:5, Interesting)
Using this argument, surely:
- Perl is derived from C, sed, awk, etc.
- Ada (design commissioned by US DoD, no less) is derived from Pascal, Algol and many others
- virtually every procedural language is derived from Algol
- MS Windows and the Mac UI are derived from X Windows and/or Xerox PARC's work (not 100% sure about the sequence of these, but the point still stands if the list has to be reordered)
- (add other examples till you get tired of it)
My point is that this is an entire industry built on "standing on the shoulders of giants". Nobody, *nobody* creates anything entirely from scratch.
Ridiculous derivations aside, I'd have thought that if SCO's (re-)definition of "derivative works" stands up, then surely all x86-based servers would be derived from IBM's original PC. After all, that's tangible hardware you can put your hands on such that a relative layman could see obvious derivations, not a bunch of lines of code where any proof of illegal copying is going to depend on accepting CVS-type logs as solid evidence. If the US legal system holds this to be true, then that could be used to kill off all non-IBM x86 hardware development since the early 1980s.
God forbid that Ada Lovelace's (frequently credited as "the first programmer") descendants read this rubbish and call their lawyers for a chat...
And other derivative works.... (Score:3, Interesting)
In that case, why stop there, you can pretty much sue everybody under that assumption.
I think, just like the author has mentioned, they cannot really get a decent case against Linux. All we have to do is a source compare on one of those old Caldera distros. And if it turns out there - well, SCO has distributed the source code themselves... Did people actually use caldera?
And since they are claiming that JFS and SMP and other components contributed to Linux by IBM are coming from AIX, that remains just an assumption. Do they have a source for AIX? Of course they don't, i hope they don't. Good luck proving that one, buddy!
Goot times!
Re:I was worried. (Score:3, Funny)
As opposed to anything else mentioned here?
Re:I was worried. (Score:5, Interesting)
There's some new stuff in there. Apparantly, they insinuated that even Microsoft and Apple are not immune to being sued, though they have not taken action yet. Perhaps if they get money from IBM, they'll snowball down the chain of OS's, using the previous court cases, gaining billions as they go to fund the lawyers? We'll see
Also, it seems they've been searching for this sort of IP infringement for a year now. Was it in an earlier article that I saw that the CIO or something of SCO has a history of using IP to extort money in this fashion? If so, he's been planning this attack for a while, and i'd be surprised if he didn't have series of plans if things go/don't go his way. Very scary, for everyeone.
And, I want to say, even though you may be a huge corporation, serving your own ends, please help fight SCO. They are not simply attacking IP, but humanity's well-being. The future of computing could be as bleak as the Matrix's blackened sky if SCO has its way.
Re:Does anyone else think this plausible? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does anyone else think this plausible? (Score:5, Interesting)
Same thing here, SCO is taking a very loose and general definition of derivative works. I doubt that any version of AIX is much of a derivative of SysV, then to go above and beyond that and try to call deriviatives of AIX technology SysV derivatives is legally interesting. This is a company that has never shipped anything remotely close to the technologies they are calling derivative. I think the courts will rule as expected in this case and the matter will be clear. I could understand if SCO was shipping something kind of Solaris like and IBM was taking AIX code derived from that solaris like platform and adding it to Linux. At best SCO owns something not that much more advanced than the OS project I did in college; in all seriousness it's closer to Yalnix and NachOS than it is to AIX. There probably isn't even a common data structure in it anymore.
Let's take this a little further. NT/2000/XP has BSD code and SysV code in it, both in the networking stack and in the POSIX layer. It has been radically altered and shares very little in common with the initial code but those were the starting points. Does that mean IE and DirectX and derivative works that SCO could in turn prevent MS from doing something like porting to MacOSX which is a product that competes with UNIX.
Re:As I pointed out at stories before... (Score:4, Insightful)
If the answer is "nothing," then quit complaining about the color of the giftwrap. Otherwise, lead by example.
ya (Score:3, Insightful)
How about MacOS?
Was Photoshop the first computer painting program?
Is that Hyundai you drive the first wheeled vehicle ever invented?
Hmmm...
Re:Interesting quote from ESR (Score:5, Informative)
Source: frontwheeldrive.com interview, 14 April 2000 [frontwheeldrive.com]
Re:Interesting quote from ESR (Score:3, Interesting)
To me the most interesting quote w
Re:SCO's case looks pretty strong (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM's aware of this. They have been ever since Phoenix Technologies broke the IBM monopoly on PC BIOSes way back when. They know exactly how to deal with it, and they've got lawyers who do nothing but make sure it's dealt with properly. I suspect that the work those programmers did was entirely new work not derived from SCO's work, which was then contributed to SCO's product. Any contamination there would be between IBM and Linux, not SCO and Linux. SCO might have a case against IBM if the contracts specifically said IBM would maintain confidentiality of the work, but I sincerely doubt IBM would have agreed to a contract that hamstrung them like that (and they wouldn't have contributed that code to Linux if they'd signed such a contract either).
If SCO's basing their case on the idea that they can extend rights upstream to code not derived from their code, IBM's going to hand them their heads on a platter.
Re:SCO's case looks pretty strong (Score:4, Informative)
Well, the SCO-IBM contract is posted on SCO's site as Exhibit D [caldera.com]. The confidentiality clauses are section 3 on pages 11 and 12.
Specifically, 3.04(v) discounts confidentiality requirements for code which is "independently created" by IBM. Also 3.04(iii) discounts confidentiality when the information is "received
Moreover, 3.06 is a "no tainted worker" clause that allows people who have seen the code to use the ideas when they are "residual information mentally retained" provided they don't try to write it down or memorize it verbatim and don't otherwise infringe copyrights or patents.
Re:Question for /. Lawyer Lurkers (Score:3, Insightful)
I think what this will boil down to is two things. 1) the definition of derived work. What is actually derived and what is add to or is extending something deriving from it? Also that derived work is more restrictive than patents. In a patent if I improve your patent I can file a patent on it and
Re:Question for /. Lawyer Lurkers (Score:3, Informative)
So having said that