Latest SCO News 787
SCO has discovered an amendment to their contract with Novell that may clarify that they did purchase the copyright to System V after all. Heise has an interview in German with a former employee. Cringely says SCO probably was responsible for any duplicated code itself, with a theory that is quite plausible. One non-programmer corporate analyst has looked at SCO's alleged evidence. And SCO has another press conference today.
I've had enough (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I've had enough (Score:5, Interesting)
Amen to that. Here's what I would do in IBM's position.
1) Buy out SCO. Hostile style. Buy up enough of the stock to have them vote to merge under IBM.
2) Fire the entire board of directors. A severance package of one pack of oreos and cab fare
3) ??????
4) Profit....or at least not losing money on this crap, which is the next best thing.
The things SCO didn't realize is that while it is possible for a mouse to annoy an elephant, sooner or later the elephant will just stomp, and all the elephant will think of it will be "how do I get these mouse guts off of my foot"
Re:I've had enough (Score:4, Interesting)
No need for. Skip the severance package under a breach of contract clause. As the contract sure says something about "protecting the interests of the shareholders". And if the majority shareholder objects... Hm....
Re:I've had enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Now the majority shareholder could order them to cease and desist, and if they didn't do so could have them fired and file breach of contract, but that's not going to happen.
In fact, despite all the talk about buying SCO out, that's not likely to happen either. According to Yahoo! [yahoo.com] insiders and 5%+ owners own 68% of the company. If insiders own over 50% then a hostile takeover is impossible without someone defecting -- and those trades are usually limited by SEC rules in the first place. This is why hostile takeovers have become a thing of the past - companies have learned that having the majority of shares being held by employees, along with SEC trading restrictions, make hostile takeovers very, very difficult.
Re:I've had enough (Score:5, Insightful)
They'd be losing money based on the current overvaluation of the stock. Even if they fire the directors, they all walk out with pockets bulging from their stock options, etc., don't they? This path also encourages other frivolous or deceitful lawsuits against them.
No, for substantially less, they should take them to court, stomp on them, drive their stock value into the ground, and make those guys feel pain in their wallets. This costs them less up front, keeps them from having to clean mouse guts off their feet, and certainly shows all the other little vermin that they need to make sure they have a real claim before going against the elephant.
Re:I've had enough (Score:5, Funny)
You can't just burn. You have to remember to salt.
Re:I've had enough (Score:5, Informative)
Lets see. Lets look at our friend Mr. McBride. According to the SEC, he has 8,000 shares that he purchased at $1.13 (thats $9040). If IBM came in on a hostile takeover today, they would probably end up paying about $10 / share (the current price is $9.26, but a hostile takeover is usually a little higher). So, at $10 bucks a share, Mr. McBride is looking for a gain of $70,960 - all for nothing more than acting like a complete asshole.
That to me sounds like a real good way to get out:
1) No need for pesky proof
2) Get rid of a operating system that drags down any company that owns it like a pair of concrete slippers.
3) ??
4) Much, *much* profit.
IBM can handle the heat. I think they should call SCO's bluff and see what happens then.
Re:I've had enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I've had enough (Score:3, Funny)
It's time for shareholders to get angry. Really, really angry with jackass boards of directors who are intent only on lining their own pockets with gold. It's outright fucking theft.
Re:I've had enough (Score:4, Interesting)
2) Fire the entire board of directors. A severance package of one pack of oreos and cab fare
3) ??????
4) Profit....or at least not losing money on this crap, which is the next best thing.
One of the articles (yea, some of us read them) actually pointed out a rather obvious 3) point, that is the goodwill generated if IBM were to GPL SCO's IP (god, more acronyms than the military).
As a long time IBM fan, I could see this benefitting IBM in a way that generates profit. Since they really sell hardware and services, this could help to increase sales, partially because of the goodwill, and because they would be able to impliment any useful code gained somewhat faster. IBM has already gained alot of traction by investing 1 billion into Linux, which they claim they recovered in the first year. Adding a few hundred million to GPL UnixWare may be even more profitable, at a lower cost.
Re:I've had enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Tk
I almost agree, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO is sending all these letters to corporate Linux users saying, "Stay away from Linux, because it violates our IP." If IBM buys SCO and open sources Unix it might prevent any further legal action, but it also might appear to lend some credibility to SCO's claims. Thus IBM is a hero to the average Linux geek, but the corporate world still sees the community as a bunch of thieves who got bailed out by the deep pockets of IBM.
Therefore, let this go to court and let IBM's lawyers prove that SCO is full of it to begin with. That way the Linux community is vindicated and the only people who look like they've done anything wrong are SCO.
Re:I've had enough (Score:3, Funny)
NO BUYOUT.....MUST BANKRUPT THEM! (Score:5, Insightful)
By purchasing SCO, no matter how easy it might make the end of this problem, it encourages others to try the same stunt.
SCO MUST be bankrupted as a result of this, no matter how much money it takes to do that in court!....Anything less encourages others to try the same style attack.
Destroy SCO, burn everything, leave nothing standing.....
Re:Damn dude.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's in newer code I'd suggest someone sue SCO for copyright violation as it's probably someone at SCO who's stolen it from Linux. Motive and opportunity... both point quite clearly at them, as they've been constantly left behind technically by Linux since the mid nineties, not to mention it's a lot easier for someone at SCO to obtain linux code than it is the other way around.
BSD code? (Score:5, Interesting)
That should be free and clear copyright-wise, but System 5 could well have the same BSD code (quite possibly orignally stolen from BSD).
Re:BSD code? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:BSD code? (Score:5, Interesting)
How can you steal something that's given away for free?
BSD was a fork of UNIX with the (TM). The BSD guys gave us insignificant things like Virtual Memory and vi. It's weird to think AT&T sued BSD when so much of UNIX heritage was invented in Bezerkely. "Hey, you there, stop using that thing you invented, cause you're giving it away for free and not allowing us to make money off your work."
If anyone remembers the original ATT vs. BSD suit will remember the way that UCB/BSD got off was that UNIX with the (TM) had some BSD code that wasn't properly copyright attributed. Then Novell came in, bought up the UNIX mess and dropped the suit. For folks that bang on Novell, this would be the second time they came in as a white knight to help a freeware version of UNIX escape the evil clutches of lawsuits.
The re-marriage of the BSD code came in SVR4, which brought in a bunch of code and BSD compatible utilities.
Same guy, diffrent decade (Score:3, Insightful)
The University's suit claimed that USL had failed in their obligation to provide due credit to the University for the use of BSD code in System V as required by the license that they had signed with the University. If the claim were found to be valid, the University asked that USL be forced to reprint all their documentation with the appropriate due credit added, to notify all their licensees of their oversight, and to run full-page advertisements in major publications such as The Wall Street
Re:BSD code? (Score:5, Funny)
Hrm... even if she's right and it's not some strange conincidence, is there old BSD code in Linux? That should be checkable.
Which is likely why SCO won't show everybody. Imagine the egg on their face when developers from around the world step forward to claim their code.... and it's not SCO's code.
Michael
Look Up BSD LITE (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:BSD code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BSD code? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BSD code? (Score:5, Funny)
This is actually quite serious (Score:5, Insightful)
Why on earth this was modded as "funny" is beyond me. Donning my tinfoil hat for a moment, I should point out that this is actually quite a serious possibility for a number of reasons:
1) SCO may well have violated the copyright on Linux code and placed it in their OS, violating the GPL, and now leveraging code they have copied in violation to accuse the free software community of their own crime.
2) An entity which dislikes free software, like an obscure Redmond company none of us have heard of, might seek to poison the well by having one of their agents deliberately release copyrighted code into a free codebase, then return a couple of years later with accusations of copyright violation.
3) It is quite possible that either of the above scenerios could be combined with an outcome by a relatively uninformed court that finds in favor of the litigant, leaving the original creator of the code in a situation where they are now forbidden from using their own code, while those who violated their copyright are granted ownership of it.
The fact that the very ill-considered Berne convention requires copyrights to be granted "automatically" with no registration means these sort of 'he said, she said' allegations can be manufactured at will, by anyone willing to violate copyright to achieve their ends.
And lest one think no large company would ever violate copyrights in order to achieve such neferious ends, I would remind everyone that one large company, Microsoft, was sued and found to have violated the copyright on, among other things, Stacker. It is not at all a stretch to think they could extend such a strategy further
But, as SCO has shown, it doesn't require anything remotely so neferious as planting bad code, violating copyright and then accusing the victim of one's crime of the same, or any of that. All it requires is that one lay claim to having written code "in secret" first (where "in secret" can include simply proprietary, unpublished code as in this case). Since copyrights aren't required to be registered, there is little defense against such accusations and the FUD and financial uncertainty and harm they can create (and their unwillingness to discose the alleged violations to allow any such issues to be resolved and fixed, ie. any such violating code to be removed and rewritten, belies their clear intent to cause harm to businesses and the community. Clearly they have no desire to reach a resolution, and equally clearly it is profoundly unlikely that they have anything even remotely resembling a legitimate claim).
Which means no software publisher is safe, now that pandora's box has been opened, from similiar disingenuous attacks.
It would behoove everyone if every copyright were required to be registerd no later than 1 year after the code/prose was written or the movie/music recorded (i.e. 1 year 'grace'). Unfortunately, the media and copyright cartels have tied all of our copyright law up in international agreements such as the Berne convention and treaties which have empowered the WTO and WIPO to such a degree that any kind of sensible reform is impossible without a nation withdrawing from a number of uncumbering and binding international accords.
So look for more of this sort of nonsense, directed not only against free software, but against all kinds of published works. Once pandora's box has been opened and the weapon used, one can only expect it to be used again. And again, empowering lawyers and decimating the productive capability of the software industry, be it free software or proprietary.
This may actually be the beginning of the final collapse of our
Re:BSD code? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why UC won the AT&T / USL vs UC suit of the early 1990s - so much of BSD had been put into AT&T illegally that UC would have had a heckuva lawsuit against AT&T should they have chosen. Instead, AT&T let them rewrite three files and continue on their merry way.
Re:BSD code? (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't need to resort to pretending that copying something is the same as stealing something for copying something to be wrong.
Enough already! (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't recall a company performing such exquisite hara-kiri in public view before...
Followup on the amendment? (Score:5, Interesting)
That there was no followup makes it easier for me to believe anyone who claims this document is a fabrication.
Re:Enough already! (Score:4, Informative)
Hara-Kiri is Japanese for "belly-splitting and refers to the method of seppuku (ritual suicide) used by male samurai.
-- Rich
Re:Enough already! (Score:5, Funny)
I could've sworn he was the old play-by-play man for the Chicago Cubs...
seppuku (Score:3, Interesting)
"Hara-kiri" is a term used to describe a form of ritual suicide in Japan where one disembowls themselves. It is derived from the Japanese words "hara" (stomach) and "kiri" (to cut), but is not actually a Japanese term.
The proper Japanese term for ritual suicide is "seppuku". Men used stomach cutting during seppuku. Women cut their throats. People committing seppuku used to have a trusted friend serve as a second, who would behead them as soon as they completed the rit
Re:Enough already! (Score:5, Funny)
Right, because federal investigators have a great track record of setting software companies straight and preventing them from screwing the consumers. Just look at how they punished Microsoft for the anti-trust violations.
What? They didn't?
Oh, well, uh, just look at all the evidence they managed to obtain against Enron before it was shredded and....
Oh, really? Oh, uh, hrm....
Sounds rather fishy... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you knowingly copy code, into a product that can be viewed by potentially millions, wouldn't you at least try to make it not resemble the original work.
Yes, it is easy to catch the lazy cheaters, but if put some effort in it then it should be a little more difficult then running grep.
I'm sure there are bound to be similarities here and there, coders no doubt ran into the same problems working on the same platform, but apparently these grievances were enough to goto court over.
Obviously, we can surmise they understand their work enough to copy kernel code, so we know the individuals were at least someone intelligent.
So, having in mind how code theft works, it doesn't make sense for something as obvious as a comment to stick around unless someone wanted to get caught.
Just my 1/100th of the american dollar.
Re:Sounds rather fishy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats a poor assumption. Whow knows what the context of the code is? Could this "non programmer analyst" determine if the code was really similar? What if the System V code came from the IDE subsystem, and the Linux code came from the networking subsystem? What if the comment was
There are just too many questions and not enough answers. I want to see the professional opinion of a kernel expert, and *then* I want to review it myself before I will start to agree that SCO might have a case. Until then, we have no idea what deals have gone on behind the scenes. There is just way too much money in play here for us not to be cynical.
blah blah blah, more FUD. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll assume nuthing. Given Information Week "evidence", I'm more likely to believe the opposite.
Let's have a look at some other opinions from Information Week's "primary beat reporter for Microsoft coverage", John Foley [informationweek.com]. Here he tries to see things through Bill Gates eyes [informationweek.com], a very silly thing to do when dealing with a liar. He ends up thinking that better things are comming again. Typica
Re:Sounds rather fishy... (Score:5, Funny)
Lindows? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyways, I think we have been over this 100 times now.
my my how things have changed (Score:5, Insightful)
The steps;
1. SCO is off their rocker and their is likely no stolen code.
2. Novell interjects: Not only that but SCO does not even have the copyright to the code they claim is stolen.
3. SCO rebuts: Yes we do.
4. Well IBM should settle since the code is obviously stolen.
I do not know what 2 and 3 have to do with getting from 1 to 4, but this is the strange path which seems to have been taken on
Re: code review (Score:5, Insightful)
Big fucking deal. What's a non-programmer going to say about code? That's like going to a farmer and asking him how to fly an airplane, or a pilot, and asking him when the best time is to plant the corn.
Re: code review (Score:5, Insightful)
Big f***ing deal. What's a non-programmer going to say about code? That's like going to a farmer and asking him how to fly an airplane, or a pilot, and asking him when the best time is to plant the corn.
I'd say it's more like asking an airplane pilot if two cows look the same.
Even more like asking a farmer if two planes look the same. They're designed to perform the same function (fly) with basically the same equipment (wings) so there will be some similarities and a lot of the differences will be in the technical details (the camber of the wing and the hydraulics that move the control surfaces) that an observer not fluent in airplane design might miss.
Granted, if the comments in question all contain the programmer's initials (something not uncommon where I work), then that would be pretty damning.
Re: code review (Score:3)
<One non-programmer corporate analyst has already reviewed the code ... >
Big fucking deal. What's a non-programmer going to say about code?
I agree. To spell it out in detail:
Even assuming that the newer code is a copy of the older version, it would take an experienced programmer to judge whether the older version was something original and copyrightable, or whether both are verbatim copies from a known public domain source. As a trivial example, I expect that within every Unix and Linux there i
Re: code review (Score:5, Insightful)
Most non-programmers comparing instances of this file from different sources would think "hey, these are almost exact copies!".
On the other hand, most programmers would be quite aware that they almost have to be exact copies: you need the "#define", you need the error name, and you need the error value, and they need to be the same. You could even imagine the comments being the same, or at least very similar. Most programmers would understand that these values are needed for compliance with published POSIX-type standards. Non-programmers would not.
Come to think of it, maybe it's something silly like this that SCO is complaining about.
Novell agrees, but can't substantiate ammendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
So Novell agrees that the information in this ammendment appears to be legit, but they can't verify that this ammendment actually occurred because they don't have a copy of it themselves?
Could it be that SCO happened to "create" this ammendment and then convienently "find it in a filing cabinet" ?
Re:Novell agrees, but can't substantiate ammendmen (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. And when found to be a falsified document then Novell would sue the everliving crap out of them. Fraud, forgery, harm to business, and probably a dozen or so other civil and criminal charges would be filed.
Even I don't think SCO is that stupid.
In any case, unless the ammendment was filed with the Copyright office it makes very little difference -- all SCO could do is sue Linux companies and users to cease further infringement, not monetary damages. They couldn't even recoup legal costs for the cases.
Re:Novell agrees, but can't substantiate ammendmen (Score:4, Interesting)
SCO out to create headaches (Score:3, Insightful)
the moral of the story (Score:5, Funny)
The moral of this story is to never comment your code.
Re:the moral of the story (Score:3, Funny)
Re:the moral of the story (Score:3, Informative)
Comments are irrelevent w/r/t software copyright (Score:5, Informative)
...
After reviewing the affidavits of Plaintiff's and Defendants, experts, a great deal of uncertainty remains as to what trade secrets Net2 might contain. One fact does seem clear: the header files, filenames, and function names used by Defendants are not trade secrets. Defendants could have printed these off of any of the thousands of unrestricted copies of Plaintiff's binary object code. (Kashtan Aff. at 9-11.) Moreover, the nonfunctional elements of the code, such as comments, cannot be trade secrets because these elements are minimal and confer no competitive advantage on Defendants. The copied elements that contain instructions, such as BREAD and CPIO, might perhaps be trade secrets, but Defendants' experts have argued persuasively that these instructions are either in the public domain or otherwise exempt. As Defendants have repeatedly emphasized, much of 32V seems to be publicly available
The Story on the NDA (Score:4, Informative)
Miss Didio (Score:5, Interesting)
Giga information group rings a bell with me too, old MS yay and Apple/Linux/everything else nay sayers :)
Now that was indepth (Score:5, Funny)
A comment saying:
is NOT a basis for a lawsuit right??? IANAL... so who knows. If it is, I am in DEEP trouble.
I dunno, I can't wait till the day comes, in the future, when we can all sit around and say "hey remember the SCO days? Boy, wasn't that a trip?"
Ugh, oh well.
I DON'T CARE!! wraa! (Score:5, Funny)
We don't need the play-by-play for this anymore than we needed it for the OJ Simpson trial...
IBM throws the pitch.
SCO swings... pop fly! He broke the bat!
Novell jumps for the catch... ERROR! He dropped it!
SCO makes it to first.. but wait! Is that cork in hs bat?
Demonstrating my ignorance.... (Score:3, Interesting)
So if SCO made contributions to the Linux kernel, and those contributions are now in the official distribution, is there a record somewhere of SCO (or their employees) contributing said code? I am pretty much in the dark as to how closely Linux contributions are tracked.
My understanding is that the GNU/FSF folks are pretty meticulous about obtaining releases and documenting contributors, and I expect that they do that for precisely this sort of situation. I am just not aware of whether or not Linus and company do the same for the Linux kernel
Re:Demonstrating my ignorance.... (Score:3)
GNU/FSF/Linux Camp has no idea were the "infringing code" is at or what it is. SCO won't say unless you sign a NDA which no one really wants to sign. Once a trial gets into the discovery stage then it might come out. At that point, it should be fairly easy to track back through the kernel releases to find out wh
Re:Demonstrating my ignorance.... (Score:3, Interesting)
toncho//usr/src/2.4/linux grep -r SCO * | grep 'Copyright'
net/bluetooth/sco.c: BT_INFO("BlueZ SCO ver %s Copyright (C) 2000,2001 Qualcomm Inc", VERSION);
toncho//usr/src/2.4/linux grep -r Caldera * | grep 'Copyright'
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc.
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: KERN_INFO "IPX Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc.\n" \
On the other hand:
toncho//usr/src/2.4/linux grep -r ' IBM ' * | grep 'Copyright' | wc
Teleconference (Score:5, Informative)
Toll Free within North America: 1-800-946-0722
International: 719-457-2647
Password to enter call: 746737
More info here [yahoo.com]
This time, I won't miss it!
FYI: Microsoft is that Analysts Meal Ticket (Score:5, Interesting)
Scroll down -->
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:lGZmsKmjdowJ: www.yankeegroup.com/public/events/conferences/ITF2 003/components/IntegrationTechForumSpeakers.pdf+La ura+DiDio&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Who is Laura Didio? (Score:4, Informative)
Laura Didio's focus, as her Bios suggest, seems to be Windows and Microsoft products. And in this space, she is sometimes critical. She also comments on some Open Source software with how it competes with the entrenched Microsoft offerings. And she does occasionally comment on Unix and Linux in general. She is cautious towards Open Source and Linux in particular. If she does have a bias against Linux, it does not seem over-the-top (although I don't always agree with her assessments).
But bias isn't the point. It is expertise. She does not focus on Unix and its derivatives. I would find it surprising if she had any idea of the history involved with this system. Much less any sort of additional technical background it would take to hash out the possible origins of any given snippit of code.
And, of course, that is part of the problem. We're dealing with snippits of code. There is no context. Even an expert may have trouble tracking pedigrees in this situation - but at least they would have some chance.
The most Laura can do is get her name in the press. And become an object lesson for the warnings other analysists made over the entire situation presented by SCO and its NDA.
One thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Novel and SCO both seem to have forgoten about it, and/or something screwy is going on.
Re:One thing... (Score:3, Informative)
The amendment changes the intellectual property that wasn't sold to the Santa Cruz Operation. It was modified to exclude from transfer "all copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the agreement, required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of Unix and UnixWare technologies
(emphasis mine). That's not very clear at all.
Re:One thing... (Score:5, Informative)
Novel transfered all of the juicy copyrights over to the Open Group before this "Admendment" anyway.
Idiots at Novell (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, this is also a problem with US copyright law. Copyrights are so nebulous and easily transferred that it's almost impossible for end-users to keep track of whose IP they may be using. Registration with the US copyright office should be a requirement, not an option.
Re:Idiots at Novell (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idiots at Novell (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, no. To do that you have to do one of two things:
1) Pull out of the Berne Convention, which states that all works have intrinsic copyright unless otherwise stated.
2) Require that everyone file for copyright status for everything they create. Personally, I'd rather not file for copyright status on every post I make to a webboard (technically copyrighted, not that I care), every bit of code I create for my company (yeah, they'd be doing the filing, but you think that would exempt me from filling out the paperwork?), any code I put under license (be it GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT, or anything but unfettered public domain status), or anything else. It'd be utterly absurd.
And, no, you can't just say "well if you don't file then it has no copyright" because that's a violation of the Berne convention. And before you say that you should just get rid of that then, think about the implications for open source software -- every program would have to file with the copyright office. $30 isn't all that much, but it's more than a lot of people would be willing to bother with. And so instead of GPL/LGPL licenses it'd all be public domain.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:denial (Score:3, Insightful)
I think most of slashdot is holding that belief for two reasons:
commentry? (Score:5, Funny)
Can SCO cheat? (Score:5, Interesting)
Logically (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point things will probably get interesting, as there are open, public records that show bit by bit in pretty close detail every step of the development of the linux kernel, and who submitted what, and when, and why it was accepted-- and these records have been publicly available on the internet for years, and archives exist in various places, which would make these records impossible to change after the fact. SCO, meanwhile, if they have records at all of when and by who code was added to their materials, has no particular proof that those records are real and not faked (either by their lawyers or a malicious employee years previous trying to pass off open source code as his own work). Just a thought..
Of course had SCO simply begun all this by publicly saying "hey, these parts of the linux kernel are copied from code we own the copyright to", the linux kernel admins would have just about certainly simply checked out those sections of code and the people who wrote them, and, if there was an apparent infringement, removed and replaced the offending sections. I'm really really hoping that this fact will not escape the judge at trial.
(I'm assuming the linux kernel people wouldn't do something stupid like allow an anonymous patch into the kernel.)
The Best $¢0 Recap (Score:3, Funny)
With so many conflicting opinions about this whole issue I don't know what to think anymore. But I do know one thing, I am going to continue to support Open Source software 100% and nothing will stop me as I would rather move to another country than give up contributing to Open Source software.
This SCO story just makes me sick to my stomach. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's a deeper, more disturbed form of the same sensation that I get when we discuss intellectual property laws on Slashdot.
What it all comes down to is this: I don't care if there are six or ten minor chunks of SCO code in Linux. I don't care where the Linux code came from. SCO is not good for humanity; SCO is a product. Linux, on the other hand, is good for humanity on a fundamental level.
It brings computing services to people across the world who otherwise couldn't afford it or who otherwise would be sending money to multi-billionaire Bill Gates instead of buying food. Thanks to Linux, these people can spend their money on real things that they need, while still participating in the global exchange of ideas and perhaps getting a toe-hold in the "modern" western world that.
Linux provides nonprofits like churches and community centers the ability to provide 'net access and document services to underpriveleged communities who otherwise wouldn't have access to these things or would have to depend on meager government funding to buy licenses (again while lining the pockets of the rich).
Linux provides some of the best hands-on education to young aspiring programmers and scientists that can be found anywhere, and it does so using best-of-breed tools, and at no charge.
Linux has fostered a community of international understanding between research organizations, governments, communities and even small groups of programmers and individuals. There are no borders in Linux, only individuals working together, smiling and one another and breaking barrier after barrier together.
Some look at this list and say "hmm... makes national borders irrelevent... helps the poor and not the rich... does not pay for labor in currency, but in the rewards of the product itself... is not strongly managed from the top down by anyone with fiscal authority, but is instead contributed to by a vast egalitarian labor pool..." and then they call Linux a form of communism and say that it needs to be eliminated, or at least that it is unethical to support Linux instead of for-profit companies.
Are these people insane? Linux is a boon to humanity. Anyone who can't see that is blind. If Linux is communism, it's time to take another look at communism, because it looks to me like a beautiful thing.
And in the meantime, I don't care where the code of Linux comes from. The fact is, SCO's never done thing one to help the human race, here they are busily exploiting it, rich and poor, young and old a like, just like so many other companies out there greedily trying to harm all our lives on the basis of "IP", and now they seem to think they can kill Linux off in the interest of making a buck, and that this would be a good, "moral" thing... and many mainstream analysts seem to make the basic assumption that if Linux did "steal" SCO's code, then this is indeed the case. Well, I disagree. Linux helps people at no charge. SCO makes a profit by exploiting people.
It's just wrong. It's backward. It makes me sick. I don't care where Linux's code comes from. SCO is no Linux and never will be, and if we end up with a nice, profitable SCO and a damaged (or defunct) Linux movement, I think the world will be a much worse place, not a much better one, no matter how much people harp about the "right" thing to do or the "rights" of copyright holders.
I almost feel like some kind of neo-flower-child. Screw the establishment. Help the people. If that's communism or if that's bad for business, so fscking what?
Re:This SCO story just makes me sick to my stomach (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, y'know, because there are lots of starving Ethiopians with networked clusters lying around. "Operating systems
Re:This SCO story just makes me sick to my stomach (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, though, this is some of the worst hyperbole I've read at this site. The last thing those struggling to eat are worrying about is kernel recompiles.
The thing is the person has a point. It's not like SCO actually developed the code in the first place. It was just something that they bought, pure and simple, a comerci
Corporate Analysts (Score:3, Insightful)
Former U.S. President Lyndon Johnson used to boast that he had never cast an unsold vote. He saw that as testament to his skill at finding someone who wanted him to vote the "right way", and getting a concession for it, which is how U.S. politics works. It is possible for analysts to work that way too. Aberdeen has been very good at finding customers for their careful analyses, while Gartner appears to control expenses by letting the customers do the writing. The analysts with a shred of dignity left have recused themselves already because they recognized that the NDA stacks the cards enough to prevent any chance of anyone publishing a fair analysis.
The crash has been hard on analysts. (You can see that in the periodic, contradictory swings by Gartner as IBM and Microsoft alternately gain control of their corporate voice.) Yankee, here, seems to be demonstrating mainly that they're hungry.
Let's not be too hasty (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not wise to get in a bind over the comments of one analyst. Remember, analysts of this same sort said .com's would continue their rise. It may very well be in this analyst's interest to assert similarities in commenting style. Interestingly enough, there was no talk in the article about actual code being reproduced, only comments.
SCO's claim was that source code had been cut directly from "their" Unix code and added to Linux. This does not preclude someone from working on both projects. All this analyst's statements show is that the same people may have worked on both systems. This doesn't show a wholesale heist of intellectual property.
SCO may be taking a page from the M$ playbook by intentially pushing "evidence from experts" to the public. Will this analysts comments be mailed to Linux users? It wouldn't surprise me in the least. If SCO can drive FUD to the hearts of corporate types, they can all but force an IBM buyout.
Laura DiDio (Score:5, Informative)
Can't someone else check SCO's source? (Score:3, Interesting)
The IP feudal system (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, we use the terms IP, patent and copyright instead of fealty, vassal and liege lord, but the end effect seems similar. Conflicted loyalties and unresolved questions pile atop one another until the whole mess comes crashing down on everyone's heads.
The articles your boss is reading... (Score:5, Insightful)
Laura Dido (Score:3, Informative)
Here is her gigaweb bio [gigaweb.com], and a brief from the Yankee Group [216.239.51.100] (scroll down, page 2).
This is more like asking a Pilot or an Air Traffic Controller to compare two planes than a farmer (as others have suggested), but I don't think anyone will be satisfied until at least a few mechanics can get into the systems with wrenches.
Even then, if SCO would kindly display what lines they believe are duplicated so that the Linux community can begin the task of tracking down the contributors, then we can have a discussion. Having NDA'd analyists examine the code only is like having the city and a city-appointed lawyer have discussions about the legality of your house while you are explicitly forbidden from coming to the table. Because so much of our livelihood depends upon it, and we have invested so much in it, nobody will accept the judgement unless we are allowed to see the proof.
And even then, of course, there will need to be proof that this *is* SCO code, and not just same-function code, statistical coincidence, or code that SCO stole from Linux.
BTW, caldera has a list (with pictures!) of the board of directors here [sco.com]. Perhaps a few million phone calls will convince them to do what they should have done in the first place and tell us what code exactly they think is copied. Without being able to research their claims due to the choice of the board of directors, we should at least investigate their board of directors.
-C
Translation of the Heise Online interview: (Score:5, Informative)
Currently the arguments circulated by SCO about Linux and the code transfer from Unix read like the film script of an IT variant of Dallas.
Daily, new companies and experts announce their opinions.
Some, like Novell, have serious points, others like Lindows spread hot air.
Both IBM and SCO, in their billion dollar suit, have ordered their technicians to maintain strict silence, as have Novell.
There, even the lawyers involved with the SCO contract refer to a statement from their legal department prohibiting them from discussing the matter.
There is also some deeper gossip. Many developers have quietly expressed their surprise, that the code and technical information generated for the Monterey project, supplied by SCO to IBM, could be at all rewarding for Linux:
Disbelief faces the suppliers. Any real proof over the Cut & Paste allegations by SCO is missing, until the code is revealed.
Now Christoph Hellwig has unexpectedly become an in demand figure.
The German software developer worked at Caldera (the old name for SCO) as a code maintainer and was part of the team, concerned with patches and bugfixes for the Linux Kernel.
Later they developed the Linux ABI Project further, which allowed implementation of unmodified Unix programs, making it possible to run software written for UnixWare and Open Server, under Caldera's Linux.
At present Hellwig is busy with SGI.
While Hellwig worked at Caldera, he commented on the relationship of SCO Unixware and Linux.
Hellwig explained at that time, copying from Unix code to Linux and vice versa were impractical:
"the Internals of the Kernels are so different that one would need a big glue compatibility layer. And that will promptly, with the next kernel review, be ripped apart."
Now that Hellwig's comments are widely discussed. We have reason enough to ask about their relation to this case.heise on-line: Do you stand by these comments?
Hellwig : Naturally.
heise on-line: SCO compared the condition of Linux with that of a bicycle, until IBM came along and then the project became a car.
Hellwig : The comparison may sound beautiful for people without any specialized knowledge, however it has purely nothing to do with reality.
Linux existed before the commitment of IBM, before the participation of large enterprises in it's development for which, in most areas of application, it was substantially more useful than UnixWare or Open Server ever were.
I see the participation of large enterprises in Linux development as a very positive move.
I do not consider it meaningful however, to place the desires of these enterprises ahead of the development of the official Linux releases.
Large enterprises tend to be inclined to be satisfied with technical solutions which are suboptimal, and to neglect areas of application which do not offer sufficient sales opportunities.
heise on-line: Will SCOs actions be successful?
Hellwig : I doubt that SCO will succeed in the legal sense with this action.
On the other hand SCO is already now successful in the sense that the share price rose and they have received other financial injections (for example the Microsoft Deal).
As long as SCO does not possess the rights to SVR4, SCO can only sue IBM for for publishing trade secrets.
Proving this will be very difficult, I don't need to say any more on that.
Something which is continuously forgotten in the debate:
Contrary to SCO, I do not refer explicitly to Unix.
Unix a registered trade mark of the OpenGroup, which any certified operating system may use, it is common use of language for any UNIX95/98 to be referred to by the term, and never, specifically to designate SCOs operating systems, Open server and Unixware. Which, as opposed to AIX, are not UNIX98 certified.
So who really did the copying? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. They modified the code (either Linux or SCO base) before showing it to the examiner, to make it look like it was closer than it actually was. Did the examiner bring his own copy of the source trees, or use those supplied by SCO?
2. The code was copied FROM Linux into SCO. Judicious back dating would be used to try to hide this fact.
3. A non-programmer doesn't understand code, and is probably only looking at the comments. In a million lines of code how hard is it to find similiar comments in unrelated sections of code.
4. Both the SCO and Linux programmers read the same books/articles, and the comments are based on what was there, thus giving similiar comments. Do the comments match up to Knuth's books?
5. Both SCO and Linux got the code from the same source. How much of BSD has SCO copied into their kernel?
6. The code in question is similiar to what you do in your beginning programming classes, and most programmers use similiar comments for that kind of thing. How many different ways are there to comment a bubble sort?
7. Someone within SCO supplied the code to Linux. Maybe in preperation for this case.
8. etc.
Until SCO allows someone capable of researching the origins of the code in question, I'll continue to believe that it is SCO that is in the wrong.
The code for both systems is already available to many people. Allowing others to see what they are complaining about won't make the suspect code disappear. If they just pointed at a bit of Linux code, they wouldn't even have to show their own code.
The only reason for not disclosing it before the trial is to gain time to hide their trail, or to deny IBM time to research their wild claims.
amendment never filed? (Score:4, Informative)
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030606/sff034_1.htm
Explain ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently the most telling evidence is that parts of the SCO code and Linux code include identical annotations made by developers when they wrote the programs, says DiDio, who compares such notes to the signature or fingerprint of a developer's work. "The fact that these appear to be transposed from Unix System V into Linux I find to be very damaging."
Now, who in the hell at IBM would be stupid enough to include identical source code 'annotations' (which I'm assuming are comments) when stealing code?
Similar annotations, maybe, but come on - even Joe Dumbass wouldn't be so fucking stupid so as to copy-and-paste proprietary source code from one to the other, comments and all.
Further, does SCO have proof that the infringing Linux code is indeed the egg? (i.e. was SCO's code even written first?) Who's to say this case should be about a GPL violation?
To imply that IBM's developers are so stupid as to copy and paste code simply begs the question, from their own logic: Who's to say that SCO's developers who weren't so bright and pulled the copy-paste job from Linux? Who's to say that SCO didn't put the source code in there themselves, intentionally. I mean, that scenario seems more likely to me: Linux source code is freely available. Nobody outside of SCO will have seen SCO source - and if they have, they're tied and raped with NDAs.
Anyway, that's enough. Here's to SCO choking on its own arrogance.
Cut the roots not the branches (Score:5, Informative)
Today its linux kernel... with probably a couple of infringements (if at all)... have you thought of softwares like mplayer ? FYI, mplayer infringes on countless patents, copyrights and EULAs. Thats why it is based in hungary and not US or some other EU country. And you won't be able to do a single thing if its developers are sued. No amount of crying will help because copyright/patent/EULA vilation is a crime in the eyes of court
If you just worry about branches, you won't succeed. If we have to get over this hell, fight the software patent regime not the companies that are using it as a tool to strangle the freedom of people!
Conference Call notes (Score:5, Informative)
XXX 12:04 est 2003-06-06
Blake Stowell says that Darl McBride and Chris Sontag will be talking today.
XXX 12:05
Darl McBride talks about the Novell announcement of May 28, 2003. "In fact, Novell does not own the copyrights." "SCO is the only rightful owner of the Unix System 5 source code and copyrights." "Portions of the Unix System 5 code were found in Linux." "Linux users need to obtain opinions from their own legal counsel."
XXX 12:07 Question and Answer session
[question #1] Peter Gally, eWeek magazine
Q: share price was up 29% today ahead of announcements of news. What do you attribute that to? A: "I can't really comment on that." Q: "Did you or any SCO executives buy or sell any shares yesterday?" A: "I personally didn't" ... not aware of any who did.
[question #2] Hiawatha Bray, Boston Globe
Q: "When Friday the 13th rolls around ... what are you going to do?" (regarding AIX license revocation)
A: "We have a number of options at our disposal."
[question #3] Stephen Shankland, CNET
Q: Copyright office does not have an assignment on file [for the Unix copyrights from Novell]. "Is it your understanding that the copyrights have not been registered yet?" A: "Stephen is correct ... [if we need] we will change the assignment of copyright ..." [we can do that at any time].
[question #4] "George Weiss", "Gartner Group" [Note: caller #4 was later exposed as an imposter]
Q: "How long can you continue to deceive investors ... if you're not trying to get bought out, what are you trying to do?"
A: "We're trying to protect our IP rights."
[question #5] Todd Weiss, Computer World
Q: "Where can we see the Asset Purchase Agreement?" A: "We have a lot of documents ... 30,000 contracts ... in the case of the Asset Purchase Agreement ... SEC filings on the Internet."
[question #6] Herbert Jackson, Renaissance Ventures
Q: "Were patents addressed?" [in the Novell-SCO asset purchase agreement] A: "Ownership of the patents was not something that SCO has ever claimed."
[question #7] Lenny Brecken, Brecken Capital
Q: "Why wasn't amendment [amendment 2 to Novell Asset Purchase Agreement] immediately available?" A: "[It was available ...] inside of four business days."
Q: "[Patent question] ... is that relevant?"
A: "This isn't a patent case."
A: "30,000 contracts .. methods, concepts, know-how ..." [that is, their 30,000 sub-licensing agreements contain contract language restricting those things]
[question #8] Roger Howerth, IP Week
Q: "Why will you not provide details [of the offending source code]?" A: "Source code is a little bit different ..." [long answer about how revealing source code would damage the trade secret status of their claims] ... "confidentiality protection"
[question #9] George Weiss, Gartner Group [Unlike question #4, this time it's the REAL George Weiss]
Statement: "I didn't ask the earlier question." A: "We already knew that" ... "I appreciate you clarifying that." ... suggestion to the fake George Weiss to drop off the call.
Q: "Are you aware of any organized movement ... to settle the claims with SCO?"
A: "I can't comment" ... "discussions with large players."
[question #10] Lenny Brecken, Brecken Capital
Q: [AIX license revocation] "Are you going to hold a CC on that date [June 13]?" A: "... on the 16th, we will take the appropriate steps ..."
XXX 12:22 Blake Stowell, closing statement
[If you want a replay, or want to followup, contact us
Re:Conference Call notes (Score:5, Informative)
First, disclosure: I am short SCOX.
McBride didn't break any new ground here, just as he didn't in the last conference call. Which leads me to believe that the purpose of these calls is to spin the market, not to inform the market.
The imposter on #4 did not accomplish anything. SCO figured him out even before the real George Weiss exposed him.
SCO dodged questions about their AIX revocation strategy, which I think is legitimate to dodge.
Todd Weiss of Computer World asked for a copy of the Asset Purchase Agreement between Novell and SCO. I think the court is going to want a copy of that, too, and SCO didn't file one with its complaint. McBride dodged that by saying it was available in "SEC filings on the Internet". I think that was a bullshit evasion.
McBride admitted that SCO does not claim ownership of any patents in Unix.
McBride referred to 30,000 contracts which contain language about methods, concepts, and know-how. He didn't say that IBM's specific contract prohibits IBM from re-using any of that. In fact, Exhibit C, paragraph 9 of SCO's complaint contains language which specifically allows IBM to do that. See http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit . In fact, could some helpful person post the specific URL's of the complaint and the exhibits?
The strongest SCO point is that they found part of the Novell contract that does grant copyrights to SCO. The weakest SCO point is that they aren't willing to show this contract to reporters.
Big Clue revealed (Score:5, Interesting)
Couldn't this be done with a few simple grep or sed commands?
Sure there would be alot of trivial differences, but if SCO is right and there is a complex alogrithm inside Linux copied for SysV then the comments for that code should be fairly obvious.
On the other hand... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, how can you pattent a bunch of atoms?
Don't take me wrong, I agree with you, but not on the basis of 1s and 0s.
Re:On the other hand... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thank God (Score:5, Insightful)
IF (and ONLY if) you (and for this discussion, "you" is any developer, not avalys in particular) actually innovated to do so. Changing from one well-known algorithm or data structure to another well-known one with better average or worst-case performance IS NOT INNOVATION. It's what you (hopefully) learned to do in school.
Yes, if you really, TRULY, come up with some new algorithm that no-one thought of before, yes, you should be *allowed* to patent it.
But there are two very good reasons why you should think long and hard before you do:
1) Chances are, you *didn't* invent it -- you probably just independently arrived at a solution that HAS been done before. So, there's a considerable risk that it's *already* been patented somewhere else (e.g. IBM or Microsoft), or that there's prior art that's clearly NOT patent-encumbered.
2) More importantly to software engineering as a field of practice, a great many true innovators make it a point NOT to protect their innovation, but instead to share it with their collegues, with students, with anyone who's interested.
Yes, that may be bad for business for the short term, but as a field that's still very research oriented, it's better for everyone in the long term.
Imagine where we'd be today if Dijkstra (holy crap, I spelled that right on the first try?) had patented his shortest-path algorithm? If various process-scheduling algorithms were patented, instead of published in textbooks?
If you only care about the here and now and your back pocket, sure, patent a method -- if you can truly convince yourself that you've innovated, and were the FIRST to do so.
But if you're interested in furthering the field, or if you know full well that what you did is neat but not truly new, *innovative*, and *non-obvious* (even after the fact), consider sharing, and letting others build on your work, instead.
Xentax
Re:Thank God (Score:5, Insightful)
The RSA patents and Unisys's LZW patents both were valid from my point of view. I don't know if there were patents on Diffie-Hellman key exchange (if yes, they have expired), but that also would have been a worthy software patent. Yes, Unisys mishandled the patent badly, but the original algorithm definitely was non-obvious and innovative.
Borderline cases (that, as far as I know have not been patented): Splay trees, A* algorithm.
Of course nowadays you can get a patent on "Doing X with a computer" and "Doing X with the Internet", where X can be anything from selling candy to taking a dump.
As far as I can tell, while there are some worthy software patents, the vast majority is crap. And even the few valid patents cover algorithms that would have been developed either way, so the patent system is not "promoting science and the useful arts" in the softeware field.
Re:Same comments in code? (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, if you are trying to code something by the book (whatever book you had at school that told you how to write an OS) I can expect that a fellow programmer in a different part of the world working on the same problem (educated by the same book) probably would have very similar comments throughout their source listing.
Of course - this adda a new layer to "i
Re:Same comments in code? (Score:3, Interesting)
Things like two spaces between certain words, mispelings, Weird Capitilization, etc.
Those are the kinds of things that are most damning.
In college, my roommate and I worked on a project for a programming class together. It was three parts, the last part was the largest part of your grade. We worked together for the first two parts, but I did all the work. He literally didn't write one line of code. I think he might have tried to write some header or
Re:Same comments in code? (Score:5, Funny)
That would be pretty interesting. If the comments are worded the same, that could be pretty convicing evidence.
Yeah, but it said....
Re:Same comments in code? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless in the SCO Group's code there's plenty of examples like this one from lib/vsprintf.c --
``/* Wirzenius wrote this portably, Torvalds fucked it up
Geoff
Re:Same comments in code? (Score:3, Insightful)
Similar comments makes this case sound a lot like the USL vs. BSDI case [bell-labs.com]. Unix version 32V is effectively public-domain.