How SCO Helped Linux Go Enterprise 386
An anonymous reader submits: "SCO may now have filed for UNIX copyrights and made various allegations about code-copying, but the actual complaint against IBM still seems to be focused around allegations UNIX-based enterprise technologies (such as RCU, JFS and SMP) being improperly added to Linux. Yet, reviewing the Linux kernel archives reveals some interesting and surprising background on just who helped put these technologies into Linux. PJ's GROKLAW blog has uncovered that 'Caldera Employee Was Key Linux Kernel Contributor,' including what looks like
a lot of work on the early stages of JFS.
The same employee's name also crops up when we look at RCU. When
IBM posts RCU improvements, did he complain? No, he requests further improvements even helpfully providing a link to inspire the IBMer!"
"Lastly, definitely worth reading, Alan Cox on Linux SMP. He says that got he ideas from a book (which presumably can't be somebody's trade secret), invented his own implementation, and did this using hardware provided by Caldera (SCO themselves do acknowledge providing hardware to the Linux SMP team)." The article points out of Christof Hellwig (the Caldera-employed kernel contributor) that "He's likely a great guy, and he's undoubtedly been a trusted Linux contributor, so this is nothing against him. It's about SCO and their position in the lawsuit, and it's about IBM's affirmative defenses."
This (Score:5, Interesting)
In the end however, it all boils down to this: SCO cannot really do anything. Okay, they paint a nice picture, blag a good story, but nothing -nothing- stands up to the evidence. Sure they could sue over copyright, patents (or what ever they've decided upon that day); but, linux is an international collaboration, and although it may have hit a hitch in the USA, it hasn't anywhere else. Linux will continue to move from strength to strength, SCO will die.
Steve.
Right hand not knowing what the left..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, with regard to their recent announcement of a "binary run-time license":
How can _anyone_ distribute linux? If it contains code that requires a license from SCO, then it can't be licensed under the GPL (see clause 7 of the GPL).
Therefore no-one can distribute it, not even SCO, since they don't own all the copyright. Is this what SCO intend? Just to get rid of ~12 years of work?
Re:Where it will all go (Score:5, Interesting)
On alt.os.development, we've been discussing this somewhat humorously. It will eventually not be a problem. Linux will be able to simply rewrite its SMP handling (and other things that have allegedly been taken from SCO). In fact, at the OS level, working with 32 processors is no different from working with 2 (which Linux could already do before the alleged copyright infringement). However, handling 32 processors very well is a completely different story.
And this is only in a worst case scenario.... Most likely linux won't have to be changed in any way....
In any case, this is a big inconvenience for many people using Linux in their companies. I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux. And why should I? Linux is supposed to be free. (All the more reason to use BSD, which I like more than Linux, but anyway...)
Linux is free (ok, it depends on your definition of free...) but remember that about a decade ago you would had to stop development on BSD related projects due to some lawsuit......
At the moment the only one who is being sued is IBM, everybody else is safe.
Even if IBM did something wrong it doesn't mean anything for linux, IBM would simply pay some billions to SCO and live for linux would go on...
And that is a very unlikely worst case.....
Jeroen
Re:Where it will all go (Score:5, Interesting)
This is something which doesn't seem to be mentioned as often as it should.
SCO are losing money big time. IBM have put significant $$$s into Linux and will be in trouble if SCO win.
MS bet the firm on
Sun bet the firm on Java
IBM bet the firm on Linux
SCO bet the firm on Lawyers.
Windows NT4.0 End of support (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAKD* but... (Score:4, Interesting)
1. SCO helps out Linux development in a few small ways -- some hardware here, a few lines of code there
2. SCO turns around and says it owns the other 99% of Linux it had nothing to do with because of the 1% that it did
3. SCO is now trying to extort licensing fees from end users because it "owns" Linux
4. This is somewhat akin to Bob's Auto Parts Factory saying that, because the wholesaler from which my mechanic purchased a very small part he used in repairing my car part didn't pay them for the part, I now must pay Bob rent on my car -- and furthermore, they won't tell either my mechanic or me which part it was, because it's a "trade secret". Hell, they won't even tell my mechanic which wholesaler he supposedly bought the part from!
Am I wrong? Did I miss something somewhere? Please feel free to correct me if I have.
-----
(*I Am Not A Kernel Developer)
Fighting back. (Score:5, Interesting)
Could there be grounds for a class action suit here? There are lots of developers that make their living in some way from linux. SCOs actions could well be a genuine threat to their livelihoods.
SCO is basically using the legal system as a weapon. Perhaps we used be using it back on them? I propose a campaign whereby:
1) Everyone that SCO thinks should pay for Linux should instead be encoraged to donate a sum to a legal fund.
2) Developers who work with Linux should find a lawer who would be willing to represent them in a class action against SCO.
Just an idea.
Re:Just remember... (Score:3, Interesting)
There are now so many claims and counter-claims that it would be helpful to have some sort of comparison of who claims to own what (name, source code, etc). My $.02.
Copyright notice in the RCU patch (Score:5, Interesting)
What I'd like to know... (Score:3, Interesting)
You know and I know that it's there and available for the downloading, but have any of the "journalists" brought this (and its implications) to SCO's attention in an interview?
I'd *love* to hear SCO's answer to that one!
Re:SCO goes after Sequent Code (Score:5, Interesting)
Any bets on how long it will take for SCO to come out and say that the programmer in question was workign without the authority or knowledge of his supervisors?
Red Hat's take on SCO: (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_rhletter2.html [redhat.com]
From the article:"Below, we've provided answers to questions that may help clarify Red Hat's position. If you have additional questions that aren't answered below, please email us at legal@redhat.com."
Re:Right hand not knowing what the left..... (Score:4, Interesting)
SCO can very well enforce their copyright by granting a license. They cannot distribute a linux version that had their proprietary code since they do not have any license to the remainder of linux.
On the other hand, since the GPL was violated by mixing open and proprietary code, no-one else has the right to distribute it either. The other contributors could file a lawsuit against RedHat, for instance, if they so desired.
It is not SCO's responsibility to insure that non-SCO code is properly licensed.
Therefore, if you need to buy a license from SCO you also need to contact every other constributor and buy a license from them in order to have a fully legal version of linux.Realisticly, however, it is unlikely that Linus et al are going to sue for code that they intended to share. So the SCO license is probably enough to cover you.
One thing is becoming more and more clear. The code that is potentially infringing is isolated to post 2.2.x kernels. Since SCO continues to distirbute 2.2.x kernels they are, in fact, agreeing that that kernel is covered under GPL. Linux users can avaoid the whole issue by running 2.2.x, which should not be hardship for most.
Re:What I'd like to know... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not quite, but close.
On May 16, 2003, someone went through the available OpenLinux distributions based on the 2.4 kernel, and removed the binaries and source.
However, the person(s) who did this forgot to remove the binary and source kernel packages contained in the
Although McBride, et al have occasionally claimed that code outside of the kernel proper is infringing, SCO's claims outside of court are a moving target, and thus only worth noting for the purpose of countering the FUD. Watch what claims they actually make in court, and keep an eye on where they get smacked down. Look at what happened to SCO in Germany, and what is about to happen in Poland.
Trillian Project and Ransom Love's LW2000 Keynote (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Where it will all go (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't pay SCO money to keep using linux.
Look at it this way: Let's suppose that SCO loses. Then you don't owe SCO money.
Let's suppose that SCO wins:
SCO says that the 2.2 kernel is ok.
In that case, if they win, all that they have done is show that 2.4 = 2.2 + SCO + other stuff.
Combining terms,
2.4 = GPL + SCO
If SCO wins and puts the 2.4 kernel under GPL, you don't owe them any money. Everything goes on as normal.
If SCO wins and they say 2.4 can't be under the GPL, then 2.4 is illegal. That's because 2.4 would be a derivative work of BOTH 2.2 and SCO, and any license on 2.4 must work with the 2.2 license and the SCO license. Since the only license that will work with the 2.2 code is the GPL, 2.4 is illegal if they choose not to put it under that license and can't exist. I also don't think they can temporarily remove 2.4 from the GPL and add it back in, because the moment they remove it, all derivatives up to the first "tainted point" become illegal...so SCO can't later on "donate" the code back to Linux because they don't own all of it.
And they can't "gain control" of all of Linux by doing this either. It would be like MS putting some little utility in Windows illegally, then having the company that made the utility win a court case where they get control of all of Windows. Not gonna happen.
I never realized how cool those clauses saying that you can't extend or alter the GPL were until this came up.
So, to make it simpler, either everyone can use 2.4 for free, or nobody can use 2.4 at all.
OTOH, if you intend to stop using Linux anyway, and you still don't want them to sue you, then you might pay them off. But realize that if you feel you have to pay them off, then you're admitting that you can't use 2.4 Linux.
Re:Just remember... (Score:5, Interesting)
So SCO may get attention from media, but not from the judge, and at the same time they keep on blabbering, giving interview after interview, releasing statement after statement that all give IBMs lawyers plenty of information about SCOs strategy, and also give SCO plenty of opportunity to let slip unfortunate statements that might hurt their case if introduced into evidence (which IBM without doubt will attempt)
IBM on the other hand have given SCO nothing.
SCO is doing all this because they have to - they know they don't have a case, and their only hope is dragging this out and making it so painful that someone decides the best way is to write them a fat check. But at the same time they are increasing the risk that they will give IBM too much ammunition.
Personally I don't think IBM will budge. Sure, it might be safer to just pay off SCO, but if they do they'll be targetted by every failing tech company out there.
Re:Just remember... (Score:2, Interesting)
You kind of answered your own complaint there. IBM isn't saying anything to the public because the public's opinion doesn't matter. The only opinion that matters is the judge's, and they're waiting for a chance to speak to him/her.
Re:Fighting back. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just remember... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just remember... (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM employ some extremely good IP lawyers. In a previous incarnation I knew one well, and he was a very sharp individual. Combined his day job with leading the Liberals/Lib Dems from one member on the city council to two-thirds majority in less than two decades.
Re:Where it will all go (Score:5, Interesting)
Normally, when you sue someone for copyright infringment, they pay you fines (this is compensation for the units already sold), and then either pay you royalties from then on or stop selling thier product (which is really thier product, since they won :P). People who already bought your product aren't in any sort of danger - Queen can't sue you for owning a Vanilla Ice CD, and JK Rowling can't sue you for owning (or even reading) one of the Harry Potter knockoffs. Similarly, USERS of Linux don't have crap to fear from SCO. Now, if SCO wins, it'll mean that the affected Linux kernels will be illegal to sell or distribute (They're only offering binary only licensing for thier code, which would conflict with the GPL), but not to use. You don't need a license to use software, no matter what everyone claims.
I honestly think at this point, SCO is seeing the stock go up, and is just getting carried away in being ballsy. Normally only the really big fish, like governments and IBM can get away with just making blatantly unsupportable claims and daring anyone to take them on.
Re:Copyright notice in the RCU patch (Score:3, Interesting)
To put that in laymens terms: Putting a Type-R sticker on your Dodge Neon does not give Acura ownership of it.
Did SCO donate code? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Just remember... (Score:4, Interesting)
I have wondered, and now am finally wondering out loud whether David Boies really knew what he was getting himself into?
He may have taken this because he likes high profile cases. But he may not have understood what kind of people he was dealing with. I wonder if he feels screwed? Lied to? I wonder if he feels that SCO terribly misrepresented their case to him?
How IBM could stop the FUD (Score:2, Interesting)
This wouldn't cost IBM much, since they are footing the legal bill anyway. Any it would deprive SCO of the revenue stream which they would probably use to further the suit.
Currently the trial date is set for 2005. We don't want the FUD to continue that long.
Re:This is kind of shaky ground to be using as pro (Score:5, Interesting)
Why does his job title basically describe him as a Caldera employee working on Linux?
Even if Caldera were to say he were doing it freelance:
(1) why do they allow him to use company resource (like email) to do it?
(2) doesn't the fact he is using caldera.de etc., make him a representative of the company?
and (3) even if you think the answer to 2 is no, isn't it completely reasonable for others (like Linus, IBM, etc) to assume he is doing with authorization of his employer given his email address, job title, etc.
Re:SCO goes after Sequent Code (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL but I believe this will be decided as a poison tree - poison fruit case. SCO poisoned itself. And deserves to die a horrible death.
SCO may be doing us all a favor (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Just remember... (Score:4, Interesting)
If this employee working for SCO worked on the kernel... he was improving GPL software. They then distributed that software... BAMN.. gpl... no questions askes. SCO may own the copyright, but they released it under the GPL.
Re:Did SCO donate code? (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL, but I think timelines are irrelevant.
Assume for the sake of argument that all the "infringing" stuff came from SCO/Caldera. (this is not what SCO/Caldera claim, but just a what-if discussion to answer your post)
1. If SCO/Caldera contributed some kind of Unix IP to Linux, *before* SCO/Caldera acquired these rights, in this case:
- for the period until SCO/Caldera owned the IP, Caldera might be liable to the then IP holder (presumably Novell)
- for the period since SCO/Caldera owned the IP, SCO/Caldera would be liable to the current IP holder, er, that's SCO/Caldera
Unix-type stuff to Linux infringing some Unix IP
- Linux distributors might be liable to the prior IP holder (presumably Novell)
- Linux distributors would almost certainly not be liable to SCO/Caldera, as the infringement was a result of the actions of SCO/Caldera themselves
2. If SCO/Caldera contributed some kind of Unix IP to Linux, *after* SCO/Caldera acquired these rights, in this case:
- Linux distributors would almost certainly not be liable to SCO/Caldera, as the infringement was a result of the actions of SCO/Caldera themselves. In this case, if SCO/Caldera willingly contributed it, it would be hard to argue it was an infringement at all!
IBM (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems to me that SCO's actions must be making
it more difficult for IBM to sell Linux to their
enterprise customers. They are very quiet. When
will IBM stand up and silence SCO? It would seem
that they could do something similar to what
the group did in Germany. They have copyrights from
their contributions. They have the money and the
legal department. I wish someone would stand up
and shut them up. If not IBM, then FSF or
Linus. SCO shouldn't be allowed to profit from
the work of all the Linux developers.
Re:Background (Score:2, Interesting)
SCO is cannon fodder for Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
The win for M$ will manifest itself in the form of some weenie company president reading the letter about how using Linux can get his company sued unless they pay up. He has his assistant tell the CIO that Linux is no longer allowed. Voila! More money for Bill.
The bigger win will come over the longer term as the M$ flacks can use this as yet another 'example' of how Open Source Is Bad For You(tm).
Of course this is IMHO...
Re:SCO goes after Sequent Code (Score:3, Interesting)
There is case law going the other way, too, though.
It comes down to the evidence presented in the case. Was there an established, written policy about working on Linux? Are there memos between this programmer and his supervisor(s) regarding the work being done on the Linux kernel? What evidence is there that the programmer was acting in the interests of the company?
Use of company resources isn't enough. I'm using company resources RIGHT NOW to post this message. Does this mean I'm acting on behalf of my employer? Nope.
Is SCO affair anything to do with Linus' decision? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just remember... (Score:2, Interesting)
Here in the US, FSF's general counsel, Eben Moglen, used to be a lawyer for IBM...
Listen to the tone in this Washington Post article (Score:2, Interesting)
Is a little company from Utah turning into the spoiler of the open-source software movement?
The SCO Group yesterday escalated its campaign to reap profits from corporate users of the Linux operating system, announcing that it wants companies to pay licensing fees. SCO is holding fast to its contention that Linux is "an unauthorized derivative of Unix," which it owns the code and copyright for. "SCO acknowledged it is seeking to bolster sagging sales by wringing revenue out of its rights to Unix, an older operating system from which Linux was derived," The Wall Street Journal reported.
It doesn't sound like the many credible journalists are taking this threat seriously. The same post article quotes quite a few other news sources (including /.) that have less than supportive opinions of SCO.
Re:Just remember... (Score:4, Interesting)
A Caldera employee working on the kernel on company time had every reason to believe that the company would sanction his working on GPL software.
Changing the management doesn't allow you to make a retoractive change of the licenses that you sold things under or gave things away under (and Caldera did both).
I may have despised Ransome Love, but these new guys are much worse.
Re:Provided that... (Score:3, Interesting)
1) A judge could rule the viral implications of the GPL to be invalid. Certainly copyright gives them exclusive rights over things and they can license it under terms, it's a grey area that their license can compel you to change the license of your software.
Nothing compelled them to change the license on that software, they did it knowingly and willingly, and payed someone to do the integration work. Notice the title in his email signatures:
"Christoph Hellwig
Kernel Engineer Unix/Linux Integration
Caldera Deutschland GmbH"
2) The judge could rule that, though individuals at SCO contributed, that overall SCO is not liable for the actions of those individuals. Essentially this defense would be the "left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing" principle. That SCO never conciously chose to distribute their IP inside of Linux.
Caldera made a pretty big deal over how they now owned the origional Unix source code and they were going to release a bunch of it as Free Software. I find it very difficult to believe that they would be issuing press releases with all the fanfare they could muster without the higher-ups noticing. If that's truely what happened, though, they should lose just based on pure gross negligence.
Not only did they have an employee whose specific job it was to port Unix code to Linux, but they even advertised JFS and SMP as selling points for their Linux distro.
If I were a judge presented with this evidence, I would be insulted that they would expect me to believe such a ludicrous claim.
Re:Just remember... (Score:3, Interesting)
Comments from a Law professor.. good stuff (Score:4, Interesting)
(taken from content here) [linuxtoday.com]
Legally Speaking
Eben Moglen, professor of law at Columbia University and general counsel to the Free Software Foundation (FSF), though says there is absolutely no reason for anyone to buy SCO's license. "Users don't need a license to use copyrighted programs anymore than they need to pay a copyright fee before reading Gone with the Wind. If you copy, distribute, or modify copyrighted material, then you can be in copyright violation."
But, he adds, if a distributor, such as Debian, were to agree to SCO's license, they would then be in violation of section 7 of the Gnu General Public License (GPL). This section specifies that if legal "conditions are imposed... that contradict the conditions of this License" you cannot distribute GPL protected free software.
"Even if SCO IP is in the Linux kernel, which has not been proved, an end-user could still not be held responsible for the copyright violation," Moglen argued.
Curiously, though, SCO is not, at this time, going after Linux distributors--nor did they suggest that they would be adding copyright infringement to their IBM lawsuit. Moglen thinks that "SCO is simply trying to scare people about using free software by making irresponsible comments." He notes that, until recently, SCO itself was distributing the code they now claim violated their own copyrights.
One reason why SCO may be hesitating about going after the Linux distributors, even though they would be the natural target for copyright violations since they've actively engaged in copying and distributing Linux source code may be because, SCO is still in the Linux distribution business.
And, speaking for himself (Moglen) and not the FSF, "I have renewed my offer to assist free software developers who may feel the need for legal assistance" because of SCO's recent actions.
Re:Just remember... (Score:2, Interesting)
Just because they're wrong doesn't mean they can't win. Boies knows that better than anyone.
Re:IBM is an expert at this stuff (Score:1, Interesting)
Based on their CEO's evident lack of concern, I assume IBM's lawyers have this whole thing covered and are just biding their time until the opportune moment, when SCO has placed its corporate neck comprehensively on the block.
Re:Chillingeffects.org (Score:1, Interesting)
Do you really believe IBM would be taking it's wait-and-see approach if they were losing money because of this? How many PHB are going to trust SCO over IBM? How many PHB have even heard of SCO?
Re:SCO goes after Sequent Code (Score:1, Interesting)
He appeared to have the authority
He had a caldera E-mail
he had a caldera phone number
he had access to caldera owned source code
Caldera distributed his work
lookup the legal definition of "agent"
Thats a legal slam dunk!