Today's SCO News 417
joebeone writes "Linus has commented on the SCO v. IBM suit saying "SCO is playing it like the Raelians" and that he will withhold his judgement until the code in question is shown in court. He has also recommended that former slashdot editor, Chris DiBona, be appointed to a panel offered by SCO to examine the evidence." Businessweek has an interview with SCO's CEO. The Open Group would like to remind everyone that SCO is only one of many in the Unix world.
Something Mismatches (Score:5, Interesting)
The May Issue [linuxforu.com] of Linux for You India [linuxforyou] has interview of SCO India Head in which that guy is pushing linux and says linux is the key focus of SCO with they wanting to contribute to the Linux Community by way of more software. Isnt that a bit odd!
SCO's own goal (Score:5, Interesting)
For more information click here [smh.com.au].
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO's Ineffable Fallacy (Score:5, Interesting)
This is precicely why SCO does not divulge exactly what's in question: it would be too easy for IBM et al to say "Oh. So sorry. Many regretti." and recode it, thus deflating any hope they have for the Home Run.
All SCO can be after is money - QED.
Re:show us the CODE! (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately in the U$ the end justifies the means and the executive options for SCO are now making them rich.,.
It is not important if they win as long as they can cash out before the outcome....
Media Ploy? (Score:0, Interesting)
The lonely kid at the back of the classroom is finally the center of attention.
Re:show us the CODE! (Score:5, Interesting)
- it is added in the last 18 months
- it is added by IBM
- they added 'a whole program'
I think this narrows things down a bit, shouldn't it be possible to make a list of code added by IBM in the last 18 months?
Maybe we could all put a snippet of this code on our website, and the one who gets sued by SCO has the right part
Recalls four ill-chosen words Linus once said... (Score:3, Interesting)
(Yes, he was joking...but he was taken way too seriously at the time if my memory serves me right.)
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if SCO shows the code (Score:5, Interesting)
The dates and times of code inclusion into linux are pretty well documented, but how can you do that with closed source.
Re:Key quote. My question: how to remedy? (Score:2, Interesting)
"If you look at the code we believe has been copied in, it's not just a line or two, it's an entire section -- and in some cases, an entire program."
one has to react to the program part. What is an 'program' doing in the linux-kernel?? What does that mean??
I remembered when I read that statement that I quit reading the rest, since it is obvious BS (to me that is).
Could this possibly happen (Score:2, Interesting)
How come... (Score:3, Interesting)
Violation, you scream. You must pay the consequences, no matter how the code got in there.
But, if it is the open source crowd that put the bad code in, then just remove it, it's all good.
More open source double-standards.
There's lots of BSD code in AT&T Unix (Score:5, Interesting)
[disclaimer: as stated above, this comment was written by an Anonymous Reader -- I'm just pasting; any positive moderation doesn't belong to me, except a "+1 informative" if you will]
"As people may recall from the original settlement of the BSD lawsuit, three files had to be removed from BSD that represented things in SysV source. What is often forgotten, though, is that AT&T itself was in a far greater bind because while there was some SysV code in BSD, there was a LOT of "borrowed" and misattributed BSD code found to be in AT&T SysV. BSD permits this, but the license at the time required the advertising clause, and AT&T fraudulently ignored this. The actual settlement said that AT&T would no longer sue the BSD people, and that the University of California would also agree to hold AT&T harmless for misappropriating BSD code. Hence, much of the code that SCO owns is actually misattributed BSD code for which UC permitted AT&T (and it's decendents) to use."
"Now much of Linux also shares code derived from ancestrial BSD sources or people who have worked in common on both, and I am sure many of the same ancestrial routines still found today at the core of SysV are in fact also BSD derived. Hence, where common code may exist, it's code that AT&T originally misappropriated, and that SCO is free to use and relicense from the AT&T/BSD settlement, but in point of law neither AT&T nor the current SysV owner has actual legal copyright over. Perhaps the regents of UC could hall these SCO scum back into court, as they are in fact in material breach of the AT&T/BSD settlement if SCO now claims copyright "ownership" of that originally misappropriated code since the settlement gave AT&T no such rights."
Re:Key quote. My question: how to remedy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:show us the CODE! (Score:5, Interesting)
FSF's Bradley Kuhn comments on SCO case (Score:5, Interesting)
For several other interesting quotes, see the whole interview [smh.com.au].
Re:SCO's own goal (Score:3, Interesting)
There are scenarios under which a company might not be compelled to stop releasing GPL'd code as soon as it realizes a violation has occurred. Suppose IBM set SCO up by stealing Unix code and then including it in Linux. Because SCO distributes Linux, they would also be releasing the offending code under the GPL. However, because IBM's intent was malicious, you could argue that the GPL cannot apply.
As for the delay in stopping Linux sales, SCO could argue that Linux was central to its business, so forgoing that revenue stream in the interest of ensuring its other IP was protected would be severely harmful. In this scenario, they could argue that they only agreed to the GPL under duress, so they should not be bound by it.
Re:SCO's Ineffable Fallacy (Score:2, Interesting)
Think IBM/Redhat/SuSE/Mandrake countersuit for lost sales during the legal wrangling. It's like playing monopoly. When you knock one player off the board, you get all his stuff.
SCO's crappy IP would become opensource, and that would be a shiner to BillG, he has open source tech in his OS now
Names dropped by SCO... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:show us the CODE! (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO ship a bunch of Linux stuff with their "LKP", (Linux Kernel Personality) add-on for UnixWare, and according to The Inquirer [theinquirer.net] they've written to say:
So, within a few weeks we'll be able to compare the old "Linux RPM CD" with the new one and find out what SCO/Caldera think was stolen.Re:Linus for Panel Member (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess I can't paint a woman not smiling, because DaVinci did it first.
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SCO's Ineffable Fallacy (Score:1, Interesting)
Yes. Not only that, if we were to pretend that there actually is infringing code, revealing the code should be required to actually collect any damages. SCO would have the legal obligation to mitigate their damages in order to collect.
IANAL.
Raelians? Naw! These Guys are Mormons! (Score:1, Interesting)
If you look at SCO's executive BIOs, most of the graduated from BYU (I did a year of BYU before switching to the University of Utah! Please note, there are no SCO executives from the U!) and Utah State.
Before you think I am a Mormon basher, you are wrong! I am a Mormon too. I spent two years on a mission, where I had nothing to do but get doors slammed in my face, have fun debates with ministers, read *NOTHING* but the scriptures, and live in a monk-like state of hormonal denial! Luckily our Mormon canon has quite a bit to keep you busy. The King James versions of the Old and New Testaments are rounded out by the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. Once finished with that you can read the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, History of the Church, B.H. Roberts etc etc. Unfortunately, quoting arcane scripture gets you dates about as fast as quoting Alan Cox!
The former CEO of Caldera, "Ransom Love" (almost prophetic when flipped around!) was my brother-in-law's Bishop for a while. Each year the Bishop interviews you to determine your worthiness to enter the temple. The power question is "Are you honest in *ALL* your dealings with your fellow man?" I wonder how these guys are going to answer that one! Or is predatory profiteerism OK with the Bishop if your lawyers win in court??
The SCO lawsuit reminds me of a chilling concept found in the Book of Mormon called "secret combinations." Basically, groups of individuals, bound by oaths, justify murder, deceit in order to get gain. (Let's hope Linus does not have to watch his back!) As the culture of dishonesty flourishes, more and more people get sucked into it until society is destroyed. Us Mormons call it the "Nephite Cycle". Be honest, serve God first, get blessed, get riches, become prideful, become dishonest & corrupt, get destroyed!
Here is a classic example of passage mentioning it from Helaman 6:38, Book of Mormon,
____________________
And it came to pass on the other hand, that the Nephites did build them up and support them, beginning at the more wicked part of them, until they had overspread all the land of the Nephites, and had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils, and to join with them in their secret murders and combinations.
_____________
Sorry for off topic rant. I have a lot of Mormon slashdot buddies and thought I would get other Mormon's opinions. But it will be interesting to see if SCO's smoking gun is nothing more than greed, smoke and mirrors.
Re:Can the paranoia and defensiveness (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm... say you own a legally purchased copy of the song 'My Sweet Lord' by George Harrison. This lawsuit comes up. [vwh.net] Are you now required to return your copy of 'My Sweet Lord' because it is now considered 'stolen property'?
The answer is 'no, of course not.' Because copyright violation and theft, despite what the BSA wants you to think, are not the treated the same under the law. Copyright violation is not theft per se because it is a 'theft' of an expression of an idea, not the theft of physical property -- basically it's plagiarism. The plagiarizer is the liable party in this case. Copyright violation is also (generally) a civil matter, rather than a criminal matter. It's (literally) an infringement upon somone else's exclusive right to copy. Basically the party that causes damages to the copyright holder is the liable party.
I hope this makes sense to you because I feel like I'm babbling.
Re:SCO's Ineffable Fallacy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Lawyers to the rescue! (Score:3, Interesting)
All the while they shoot letters out complaining about this and that and constantly attacking. They will justify their actions through self righteous indignation and that they are only looking after their clients best interest. In reality it means they can double or triple the billable hours (which at $200 to $400 can mean a lot of the green stuff). They sell the clients on it by saying that they are going to be super aggressive and wear down the other side.
I worked on a case once in which our client was sued for something like $300 million. The bulk of the claim though was smoke and mirrors. Things that looked legitimate on paper, but wouldn't hold up in court under cross examination. Well, they drug the case out for a couple years constantly changing the claim and making frivilous demands and grievances. All of which we had to counter to the tune of an eventual $10 million bill.
As kharma wuld have it, though, at the end of the day the Judge saw through it. Not only did they lose their claim- they got a whopping $0, but they also ended up having to pay our legal fees (remember that inflated $10 mil that they caused?) in addition to their own. That must have been a fun one to explain to the board!
"So did we get the $200mil?"
"Noooo, but we do have to pay them $10mil, in addition to the $15mil we blew on our lawyers."
"So you spent $25mil to get $0?"
"Well..."
If SCO is stupid enough to pursue something this flimsy, you better believe that there is an atty out there more than willing to take as much of their money as he can (does anyone know who is representing SCO?). And brother, it will be a lot. IBM might even be thinking that if the case is so poor for SCO that they will go ahead and move for Summary Judgment and then try to recover all of their fees for putting up with the action. In fact, they might even think of counter suing for the filing of a frivilous lawsuit. Due to their size IBM could probably grind SCO down until its teetering on bankruptcy and then buy them out, send McBride to McDonald's and be done with it. But then again IBM has not seen fit to ask my opinion (yet);-)
Kernel developers and FSF file lawsuit against SCO (Score:4, Interesting)
The kernel developers have carefully crafted Linux over many years. It seems to me they would be willing to protect *their* image and *their* product from these kind of attacks.
Especially the people who developed the capabilities that SCO claims did not exist in Linux until IBMs intervention. The SCO action claims these developers are lying, that they never did the work!
If EFF files a lawsuit on behalf of named developers of the Linux kernel, I'd pledge $100 over paypal to such an effort.
Re:How come... (Score:3, Interesting)
This shouldn't have been modded insightful.
There is a world of difference between the two. The Linux crowd is waiting to be shown the infringing code so it can be replaced. I expect it will be replaced within 24 hours of being found.
The OpenTV group have been told where their violation was over a year ago and have declined to repair their error or even acknowlege it exists.
Reason Online about SCO, Linux and Redmond (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is the real concern (Score:2, Interesting)
If IBM starts seeing significant resistance to Linux adoption out in the field, they can just include a clause in their standard contracts indemnifying their customers against any legal problems that arise from the use of IBM's distribution. In fact I suspect many customers already have this in their agreements. There's been IP FUD around open source for years -- any company big enough to be buying commercial Linux support from a major vendor is probably big enough to have thought this stuff through before letting Linux through the door in the first place. The SCO suit might affect ad hoc adoption under some circumstances, but small installations might just as easily assume they're too small to get caught up in this nonsense.
Theoretically IBM could actually use the suit to increase their Linux market: Hey company, if you install Linux on your own you might be sued by a Slimy Cretinous Obfuscator. Buy your support from us and we'll protect you from them!
Re:How come... (Score:1, Interesting)
It is extremely amusing how zealots like yourself continue to pound the drum with one hand and cover one ear with the other hand so you don't have to hear it.
Linux *can* effectively die if we aren't careful (Score:3, Interesting)
Contrary to a popular hacker belief, Linux (for purposes of this post, Linux refers to the kernel, GNU, assorted tools and environments, etc) can effectively die if we, the community, aren't careful.
In order to stay "alive" Linux must continue to provide innovative and useful tools AND support for modern Internet standards and protocols on on modern hardware. Without support for new Internet standards/protocols and new hardware, fewer people will be inclined to try Linux, and some Linux users will be inclined to switch away. This process is a negative feedback loop, which is sometimes known as a death spiral. Each generation that a negative feedback loop is allowed to continue makes it more likely that it will continue for another generation. If allowed to continue for too long, you end up with an extremely small and insular group of coders developing software that is utterly useless to anyone but themselves.
To avoid this negative feedback loop, we must maintain and expand our current user base. This is an inherently positive process, as it means that new coders will join our ranks to help make better software. However, while we continue to gain new coders every year, the overwhelming majority of people who are new Linux users are not writing new code. As cliched as it may be, these kind of people expect Linux to just work with their (often new) hardware and with modern standards, protocols, and file formats, and if it doesn't they are unlikely to return.
The obvious response is that Free Software coders will code in support for new hardware, like they have done in the past. However, a few points bear mentioning. One is that much of the device support in the kernel is the direct result of contributions (code, money, extensive documentation) by hardware manufacturers. Another is that as devices become more advanced and complicated, it becomes exponentially more difficult to write adequate drivers for them without extensive documentation provided by hardware manufacturers. In both of these cases, hardware manufacturers may be unwilling to give their assistance unless Linux has sufficient market share, or the prospects of a larger market share in the future.
In a related vein, Internet standards and protocols, as well as office file formats, are under constant threat of patents and proprietary trickery. The only way to stop or prevent this is to have a large user population which can react negatively to any such proprietary encroachment. For example, the community just barely averted disaster with W3C patent policy, and it still was not a complete victory for us. This was just the tip of the iceberg, and we may not be so lucky in the future unless we continue to grow.
So failure to maintain and expand the Linux user base threatens our ability to support new hardware and standards/protocols, and failure to support new hardware and standards/protocols threatens our maintenance of the user base. A classic feedback loop. Now that we know why expanding the user base is important, the question remains, which potential converts do we target? The choices are individual users or companies.
Targetting individual users is difficult and manpower intensive (LUGs). Most end-users do not perceive immediate benefits of switching, and will thus resist switching. And even when they do switch, there is little benefit to the catalyst of the switch, other than a vague sense of accomplishment. Not that this isn't worth doing, but it's not the optimal strategy.
On the other hand, corporate switching has a much higher payoff. A single corporate switch can affect hundreds or thousands of users. Benefits of switching to corporations are quickly noticed (ie: cost savings, reliability, etc). And benefits to the catalyst (ie: money) are also palpable.
In conclusion we see that maintaining and growing the Linux user base is necessary for its long term viability. And we see that the best way to expand Linux's user base is to start by targetting businesses. Thus, anything that threatens that strategy threatens the long term viability and survival of Linux as a whole.
Re:Can we "short" SCO's stock? (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Make BS claims that their IP was robbed.
2) Wait for stockholders to ramp up the cost of the stock.
3) Sell crap stock when it's worth 10 times more than it was a few months previous.
4) PROFIT!!!
'nuff said?
Re:Scaring OSS consumers (Score:3, Interesting)
I can see that you might be able to use DRM "technology" to make verifiable timestamps on files. As such Microsoft giving SCO money makes perfect sense; If this trial leads to the conclusion that the industry as a whole needs to better be able to track a file's history, then it could lead to a big push for DRM; As Microsoft is poised to benefit greatly from DRM, it would be a big healthy push for them.
why hasn't someone run a code compare program? (Score:3, Interesting)
"I use Linux, please sue me." (Score:3, Interesting)
I submitted this as a story to Slashdot, but it was rejected.
Re:show us the CODE! (Score:2, Interesting)
SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.
SCO's court filings focus exclusively on trade secrets and breach of contract. Darls outburst today, claiming that IBM has committed acts of copyright infringement, will probably get him in much hot water with his legal team.
If there are no such infringing pieces of UnixWare code in Linux then IBM's legal team will know very soon that Darl is full of shit. They have access to both source trees so they can prove it beyond any doubt. If they can they'll counter-sue with a massive libel claim.
The man would appear to be a complete idiot.
SCO's FUD Debunked-Linux Wins! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
That was never really proven.. the complaint was that the structures in the headders looked the same. Given the fact that both drivers were for the same hardware that was a given.
In that case they should have told the alleger to FOAD. If the headers were dictated by the hardware, it's actually not infringement even if they were copied. As it happens I have the case that decided this at my feet now (Computer Associates v Altai). The reason for this is that the required structure, abstracted from the code, is an idea that the headers express, and if the ways of expressing that idea are very limited, then the expression is not protected, otherwise it would amount to protecting the idea.
This is why the Wine project (and similar projects to duplicate the MS API) have not been sued out of existence. The API is an interface for programs to rely on - that is, it is the idea. Even though the API has basically been copied from Windows, because of the constraints imposed by the existing API, the implementation by the Wine project is within a limited range of possible expressions of that idea, and so it is not an infringement for that copying to take place.
I strongly suspect that when SCO gets around to revealing what parts are alleged to have been copied, we'll find that the code in question is substantially dictated by the idea, thus preventing it from being infringing even if it was copied.