SCO’s lawsuit filed in Utah last week claims that IBM integrated computer code belonging to another company into the Linux operating system, touching off speculation that the lawsuit could hurt other Linux companies, including Red Hat, the country’s largest distributor of the software. Red Hat isn’t involved in the dispute, but some analysts say that the Raleigh-based company won’t be able to escape the fallout. “It’s kind of irrelevant who wins the lawsuit,” said Victor Raisys, analyst with Soundview Technology Group in San Francisco. “You can’t take back the fact that someone has tried to claim intellectual property on Linux. The genie is out of the bottle.“
Linux Suit Could Hurt Red Hat
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
“You can’t take back the fact that someone has tried to claim intellectual property on Linux. The genie is out of the bottle.”
this is actually one of the things redhat is very careful about. I believe intellectual property’s will cause trouble for some linux software and some linux distros, but redhat tries very hard to avoid these (no mp3, no mplayer, no ntfs, …)
this is also why i think redhat is going to be a survivor for quite a while, they have a well thought out distribution, unlike some others
“The genie is out of the bottle.”, ends the synopsis.
This isn’t as scary as it’s made to seem, imho. Especially if the genie is crushed by a blue giant, named IBM.
Last I checked, the lawsuit was about violating an NDA not IP rights. The difference, in this case, is significant.
it’s indeed not as scary as it seems, but intellectual property claims _are_ the achilles heel of OSS, and people need to understand this is why most free downloadable iso’s don’t come with browser plugins etc.
First: how could such a lawsuit affect a Linux vendor that includes GPLed only software in its distribution?
Second: in the worst case, IBM will be revealed as stealing non-GPL code from SCO, but how this can possibly affect Linux as such?
Obviously, I am not a lawyer and my questions sound naive, but maybe more legally educated people can provide some clarifications.
heh, yeah, pull the other one.
Here’s the danger: IBM developer works on Linux kernel or other major part of Linux. That work is good, gets blessed by Linus, ends up in the Linux kernel, gets integrated into all the Linux distros. Several years later, it turns out that that IBM developer had previously worked on Unix, had seen some of the proprietary code that now “belongs’ to SCO. If SCO can prove in court that the developer in question has inadvertently used some of what he learned from the Unix code to make new code for the Linux kernel, then there’s the danger that the court could require all versions of Linux to remove the code in question. That would be a problem for Linux, but I’m not sure it would be a major problem for anyone but IBM, who would be subject to damages.
This is why, I’ve heard, that Microsoft forbids its developers from even looking at open source software’s code. They are worried that if there’s any similarity between a future MS product’s functionality and that of some open source software that the OSS people would be able to sue them.
This is a not-well-defined area of intellectual property law, when you bring the open source angle in. In the past, companies misappropriated each other’s IP, sometimes on purpose, sometimes accidentally. But there was always an easier paper trail, because they only saw each other’s source code under protected circumstances (partnership) or through theft.
I think it’s a little hazy, this concept of IP misapprpriation by a developer learning something from commercial source code and then using that knowledge to make some completely new source code. I guess that’s what the courts are for.
What’s truly unique about this lawsuit is that since the IP in question has been released to the public and therefore irretrivably lost to SCO (as if it would have done them any good, since their IP is by now of dubious value) it could possibly justify a much larger award of damages by the court than if this were simply the case of IBM using their IP in a commercial closed source product that could simply be recalled and replaced with a clean version.
The lawsuit isn’t about code in linux at all. The lawsuit is about a contract that SCO had with IBM about a joint venture that they were going to persue.
I don’t understand how this has anything to do with IP in linux. SCO is not attacking Linux, they’re attacking IBM for a breach of contract.
Redhat and other Linux distributions will probably be quick to point this out if they have any trouble with customers pointing out that there is IP problems in Linux.
You forgott that linux is a mundial success and other foreign linux companies will continue to develop their distributions. American “justice” is dumb like their president…
Linux was ceated by a Finland’s man, KDE is basically a german project, and there are many other linux distributions, like the german SuSe, the french mandrake, the brazilian Conectiva, and so.
Those of you who keep whining about Redhat and MP3 can now understand the potential issues. Redhat expects to succeed financially, that’s why they tend to be on the prudent end
SCO would never want to damage Linux in any way, otherwise their partnership with United Linux would become in danger. They probably just want money from IBM.
bman, I think you’re right. From what I’ve read about the suit (including interviews with SCO people), the suit’s about contracts between IBM and SCO. IP plays into it, but it’s not the focus. Also, many are of the opinion that Linux is safe because, technically, it isn’t UNIX: it’s a clone, or a UNIX-alike, which works just like UNIX in general (with certain optimizations, of course) but doesn’t have a single line of SCO-owned UNIX code. I don’t know how this would stand up in court…that’s just what I’ve heard.
“This is why, I’ve heard, that Microsoft forbids its developers from even looking at open source software’s code. They are worried that if there’s any similarity between a future MS product’s functionality and that of some open source software that the OSS people would be able to sue them.”
Yes, David Adams, MS does this. In fact, many entities forbid such things. In Hollywood, for example, if I write a “treatment” (try-out script, basically) for Frasier, I can’t send it to the production staff at that show. They legally can’t read it, because if something even remotely similar ends up in a future episode and they have read my script, they’ve opened themselves to a lawsuit. Therefore, there does seem to be some weakness in IBM’s legal position here in this respect. Again, however, how this will play out in court (and whether it will affect other distros) has yet to be seen. Interesting, though.
United Linux is a bust. SCO Unix is dying/dead. This is the desperate last grasp for air from a failing company.
So even though your reasons aren’t necessarily right you still come to the same conclusion: they just want money.
And in doing so they don’t care who they take down with them.
“American “justice” is dumb like their president…”
Think before you speak, Marcelo. Intellectual Property laws are just as active in Europe, South America, and many parts of Asia as they are in America and Canada. And how this will affect international companies is not clear right now, but there are a host of international laws that could come into play here. According to the references I’ve consulted, there are more international laws pertaining to commerce (including IP) than anything else because of all the international trade and multi-national companies.
>>>>I don’t understand how this has anything to do with IP in linux. SCO is not attacking Linux, they’re attacking IBM for a breach of contract.
Please read this very old IBM interview:
http://www.sslug.dk/patent/strassemeyer/transr-del.shtml
The reason why SCO isn’t suing IBM for IP infringement is because IBM anticipated this possible problem a long time ago — that’s the REAL reason why IBM doesn’t have their own IBM Linux distribution.
RedHat/SuSE takes all the legal risks on IP infringements as linux distributors — while IBM takes billions of dollars in linux revenue. And this is also the reason why HP abandoned their own linux distribution project. Why SUN is still pursuing their own SUN linux distribution project is just plain stupid.
All the legal risks for IBM, HP and Dell are insulated by linux distributors like RedHat and SuSE.
>>>this is also why i think redhat is going to be a survivor for quite a while, they have a well thought out distribution, unlike some others
>>>redhat tries very hard to avoid these (no mp3, no mplayer, no ntfs, …)
This SCO/IBM lawsuit is a good lesson for everybody who sells or uses linux solutions.
Investors is going to start to question whether they should invest any money at all on linux distributors like RedHat and SuSE, which takes all the legal risks. Sure it’s easy to exclude the obvious mp3 player or dvd player from a linux distro because of IP risks, BUT 99% of the legal risks will be hidden away in some little known patent. Why invest in RedHat/SuSE when IBM/Dell/HP takes 99% of the linux revenue and IBM/Dell/HP assumes 0% of the legal risks.
Embedded linux is DEAD. If you read the old IBM interview above, the IBM guy equates embedding linux as “sit on a bomb where someone can sue them and then they cannot ship their product any longer.” IBM isn’t selling actual hardware products with linux embedded. Sure IBM is busy doing their PR on their PowerPC/linux PDA reference design. But IBM is only trying to sell you their powerpc chips. If you have used embedded linux on their PDA reference design and then later on you encountered legal problems, IBM already sold you all those CPU’s — they ain’t going to care whether you have GPL problem or not.
I predict that SCO will get a huge bitch-slap for their efforts. It doesn’t matter that SCO is claiming intellectual property rights; SCO will not exist in two years.
IP infringements are very hard to prove, no matter what SCO does it cannot prove in court that IBM’s Linux developers were anyway swayed by the UNIX System V source code. It might be able to, and a slim chance of that if they can find out who is on the developer teams, if Joe Blow works on AIX and not on Linux, SCO is out of Luck, BUT if Joe Blow works on AIX and on Linux then the burden of proof falls on IBM, but what it will ultimately come down to is will the developer admit that he was influenced, plus SCO has to find out who the developers are. As Linus stated, Linux was running on 16 CPU Sun systems before IBM even came along which proves it was enterprise ready. All IBM assisted with was distribution and marketing. SCO main claim states that Linux was a hobbyist OS and that if IBM hadnt gotten involved with Linux it would never have been enterprise ready and would have remained a hobbyist OS. Which is crap. Basically SCO is crying that they were unable to sell more of their crappy software. SCO’s claims hold no clout, and they will be more burdened to provide proof than IBM. Any fool can file a lawsuit. I could file a lawsuit against Eugenia stating that she is a racist and religous fanatic thats harrassing me, but that does not mean I will win…
By the way I am not saying Eugenia is a racist and religous fanatic thats harrassing me, she IS NOT. Im just using it as an example.
>>>intellectual property claims _are_ the achilles heel of linux
how so?
>>>>BUT 99% of the legal risks will be hidden away in some little known patent. Why invest in RedHat/SuSE when IBM/Dell/HP takes 99% of the linux revenue and IBM/Dell/HP assumes 0% of the legal risks.
what in hades are you talking about? can you paint a picture (with details) to substantiate your claim?
>>>>what in hades are you talking about? can you paint a picture (with details) to substantiate your claim?
Quote from the IBM interview:
“What is wrong about this distribution, is basically the millions of lines of code that we never have seen. We don’t know if there are any patent infringments [in this code] with somebody we don’t know. We don’t want to take the risk of being sued for a patent infringement. That is why we don’t do distributions, and that’s why we have distributors.”
My concern is this. When I was at the SCO site reading and listening to their claims and grievances, what struck me is “Oh god, if they win and IBM has to make restitutions, just think of how long the Linux kernel could potentially be on hold” . See, if SCO has their way, IBM not only has to pay $$, they have to go about the process of removing all the proprietary AIX/UNIX source from Linux. Fruther, if the courts do rule that IBM has to make this particular restitution, they could also say that no further linux kernel developement can take place on the existing source untill IBM has completed it’s restitution. That’s what was on SCO’s site.(not verbatum)
With the courts deciding to let M$ keep a virtual monopoly, I can’t say I have much hope in our legal system in regards to IP or IT in general. SCO sucks, I remember how excited I was about United Linux, thinking how ingenuitive it would be, only to find it a reworked gui on Suse. Well, by and large anyway.
I think RedHat should follow Suse’s lead in “reevaluating their relationship with SCO”.
SCO doesn’t want to better the software/IT community, they just want $$.
>>>>When I was at the SCO site reading and listening to their claims and grievances, what struck me is “Oh god, if they win and IBM has to make restitutions, just think of how long the Linux kernel could potentially be on hold” . See, if SCO has their way, IBM not only has to pay $$, they have to go about the process of removing all the proprietary AIX/UNIX source from Linux. Fruther, if the courts do rule that IBM has to make this particular restitution, they could also say that no further linux kernel developement can take place on the existing source untill IBM has completed it’s restitution.
Even in the worst scenario, that IBM can’t sell any more copies of AIX (after the 100 day counterdown). So what? It may just mean that RedHat and SuSE can’t sell any more Linux distributions. But IBM can still make a bundle of money by hosting Linux-on-demand supercomputers for your rental, like utilities such as electricity or water. The legal risks lie in the linux distributors (RedHat and SuSE), not on IBM.
Quote Marcel:
American “justice” is dumb like their president…
I think we have enough biggotry and hatred going on in the world without a**holes like you making insulting comments about another country (whether it’s true on not). This isn’t the forum for this kind of BS.
Back OT:
No matter what the outcome, I think some damage has already been done. Companies that were previously evaluating OSS like GNU/Linux might now be holding off or rethinking their choices. This whole lawsuit has put just enough FUD out there to make people hesitate, and I think that is the worst part that will only be compounded as this suit drags on for x amount of time.
>>>>No matter what the outcome, I think some damage has already been done. Companies that were previously evaluating OSS like GNU/Linux might now be holding off or rethinking their choices. This whole lawsuit has put just enough FUD out there to make people hesitate, and I think that is the worst part that will only be compounded as this suit drags on for x amount of time.
I disagree 100% with your view, I think this is a good thing.
What is so wrong with actually THINKING it through before your company goes into the linux business or deploying linux. IBM thought it through — they have a well thought out business plan regarding linux. IBM doesn’t do linux distributions because of IP risks. IBM doesn’t embed linux on their own products because of IP risks. IBM starts linux-on-demand utility services because they don’t actually sell linux distributions so they don’t have IP risks and they don’t have to give back their own improvements to the community because linux-on-demand supercomputers reside within IBM buildings so there’s no distribution made (and no GPL requirement to give back improvements).
I mean if you didn’t think it through before you start a business selling linux or deploying linux on your corporate computer systems — then you are most likely just listening to FUD about how Microsoft is bad and decided to adopt linux without any thoughtful evaluation.
@sam
I said “..might now be holding off or rethinking their choices”, maybe not. Of course I’m not implying this is the case for every company using or evaluating GNU/Linux . Organizations that are well into the process of evaluating OSS and seeing how it will integrate with thier current infrastructure will probably be unfazed. Organizations that are just starting to look at GNU/Linux might have some hesitation, maybe not. I am confident IBM will destroy SCO Group into nothing, but the fact remains that no matter how ridiculous this suit may be, the world is watching carefully how this whole thing is going to pan out, and there are some concerns.
>>>>Organizations that are well into the process of evaluating OSS and seeing how it will integrate with thier current infrastructure will probably be unfazed. Organizations that are just starting to look at GNU/Linux might have some hesitation, maybe not. I am confident IBM will destroy SCO Group into nothing, but the fact remains that no matter how ridiculous this suit may be, the world is watching carefully how this whole thing is going to pan out, and there are some concerns.
You are still not taking the big picture. Sure this SCO lawsuit is ridiculous, but it is only ridiculous because IBM thoughtfully insulated itself from the obvious IP infringement risks, so SCO had to file a lawsuit by way of a contractual breach of NDA, a much harder case to prove.
But for those who are currently evaluating linux, they should not be thinking about SCO at all. They should be thinking about what IBM was thinking about YEARS AGO, quote from the interview:
>>>”What is wrong about this distribution, is basically the millions of lines of code that we never have seen. We don’t know if there are any patent infringments [in this code] with somebody we don’t know.”
The big risk is not SCO — the real big risk is still hidden among millions of lines of codes, the “yet-to-be-discovered” patent infringement. That’s the big picture and IBM thought that through years ago.
Here’s the danger: IBM developer works on Linux kernel or other major part of Linux. That work is good, gets blessed by Linus, ends up in the Linux kernel, gets integrated into all the Linux distros. Several years later, it turns out that that IBM developer had previously worked on Unix, had seen some of the proprietary code that now “belongs’ to SCO. If SCO can prove in court that the developer in question has inadvertently used some of what he learned from the Unix code to make new code for the Linux kernel, then there’s the danger that the court could require all versions of Linux to remove the code in question. That would be a problem for Linux, but I’m not sure it would be a major problem for anyone but IBM, who would be subject to damages.
First off this isn’t what the suit is about. But lets assume it were, Linux would still be fine. Lets not forget those lines that Linus put in the kernel would have been distributed by Caldera under the GPL. Which means that Caldera would have given everyone the right to copy, redistribute and alter that code. In other words SCO’s IP rights they had would have been invalidated.
A company can’t say “you can freely use this” and then sue people who use it.
>>>>Lets not forget those lines that Linus put in the kernel would have been distributed by Caldera under the GPL. Which means that Caldera would have given everyone the right to copy, redistribute and alter that code.
No, Caldera would only give those rights on the source code that Caldera themselves added to linus’ codes. You can’t give rights away that you don’t have in the first place (since the original linus codes are GPL, Caldera would have no rights to restrict its distribution — therefore caldera never would have given everyone the right to copy, redistribute and alter that code”).
What has IBM really added? Yet another filesystem?
How well documented are patches? And how far back? Is a CVS that SCO employees had access to for years admissible as evidence?
Not only does SCO have to prove that their code is there, they have to prove it came from IBM. Not Caldera or any random developer who had worked with them along the way.
Also you have the million monkeys at a million typewriters problem. I mean, there are only so many things for an OS to do, and so many ways to do them.
It is possible that functions will get written basicly the same way by two people with similar programming backgrounds. The sheer number of Linux developers makes this a real possibility.
I doubt that IBM or Linux in general will lose this case. On the other hand, we all thought Microsoft would get slammed in the antitrust case.
Mutiny
” No, Caldera would only give those rights on the source code that Caldera themselves added to linus’ codes”
1. SCO claims that their IP is in the linux kernel
2. SCO continues to distribute the linux kernel as part of their linux distro, under the GPL
3. Continuing to distribute this code, *after identifying it* as infringing (supposedly), means they can’t claim they GPL’d their distro but they didn’t realize their pseudo-IP was in it
IANAL, but, distributing Linux didn’t invalidate their IP rights because they didn’t realize what they accuse IBM of. Continuing to GPL this code, however, is BS because now they are knowingly distributing their so-called IP under the GPL.
Quotes from Sam:
Investors is going to start to question whether they should invest any money at all on linux distributors like RedHat and SuSE, which takes all the legal risks.
….It may just mean that RedHat and SuSE can’t sell any more Linux distributions………….The legal risks lie in the linux distributors (RedHat and SuSE), not on IBM.
You claim that there is some risks and doubt that exist based on you qutes above, then further down you disagree with my claim that this could might cause some doubt for some organizations considering adpotion of GNU/Linux. WTF?
You completely contradict yourself (just re-read your posts), so I think you are just arguing for argument sake.
The Judge could just rule for a summary dismissal of the lawsuit, based on the lack of merit of any lawsuit that claims IP rights over Linux based on ownership of IP rights over UNIX.
Linux is not a derivative work of UNIX, I think Bruce Perens has clearly made a case for this in his comments..
Andrew
The problem for Red Hat and other Linux firms is that IBM may settle without a buyout of SCO/Caldera, thus barring Red Hat (and OSS generally) from a proper and logical defense. The 100 day altimatum from SCO provides IBM with a plausible excuse to end the matter quickly, which presumably would be desirable to IBM’s customers. If IBM really was a supporter of Linux, they would quickly buyout SCO at a premium, and get on with their business. If IBM goes to trial, it would look really bad if they lost, and a computer illiterate jury could easily screw-up and make the wrong interpretation of the elements of evidence presented by the opposing parties. It may well be that IBM placed a big bunch of dynamite under the Linux bridge, donned the white hat as an apparent victim, then threw the plunger switch over to SCO to blow it up after they got clear (settled). The Wincartel monopoly (standing in the distance, watching, grinning, doing nothing) would be even furthur empowered to dominate the consumer PC market space while the other *nix firms (Sun, HP) have secured perpetual licenses for their software distributions and are thus protected. I predict that SCO/Caldera will attack Red Hat and others in the very near future. I hope that I’m dead wrong, but I don’t think so.
<<<<Investors is going to start to question whether they should invest any money at all on linux distributors like RedHat and SuSE, which takes all the legal risks.
<<<<….It may just mean that RedHat and SuSE can’t sell any more Linux distributions………….The legal risks lie in the linux distributors (RedHat and SuSE), not on IBM.
>>>>You claim that there is some risks and doubt that exist based on you qutes above, then further down you disagree with my claim that this could might cause some doubt for some organizations considering adpotion of GNU/Linux. WTF?
>>>>You completely contradict yourself (just re-read your posts), so I think you are just arguing for argument sake.
I don’t see any contradictions at all.
In the first quote, “Investors” are the people who bought stocks in RedHat and SuSE on the stock market. They have to re-evaluate whether investing in linux distributor is a good investment because sales growth is going to be much slower than the growth in linux revenue of IBM/HP/Dell. They have to re-evaluate because the redhat and suse gets 1% of the revenue while they get all the legal risks.
In the second quote, I am saying that in the event that there is a legal limbo that prevents everybody from selling linux OS — it will only prevent redhat and suse from selling linux OS. IBM is not selling linux OS itself — by its linux-on-demand — so if there is a legal limbo, IBM won’t be affected.
>>>>If IBM really was a supporter of Linux, they would quickly buyout SCO at a premium, and get on with their business. If IBM goes to trial, it would look really bad if they lost, and a computer illiterate jury could easily screw-up and make the wrong interpretation of the elements of evidence presented by the opposing parties.
It doesn’t matter to IBM at all. IBM is a computer consulting company now. If there is chaos and everybody is in legal limbo over this potential nuclear fallout — you still have to pay IBM consulting a princely sum to migrate to another platform.
>>>>while the other *nix firms (Sun, HP) have secured perpetual licenses for their software distributions and are thus protected.
“Perpetual” means absolutely nothing. IBM is saying that they have a “irrevocable” UNIX license as well. All legal contracts have “perpetual…, BUT IN THE EVENT” or “irrevocable…, BUT IN THE EVENT”. Look at the tax code, “all income is taxable…. but the following exceptions”, it’s the exceptions fill the phonebook size tax code (or else the US tax code would be 1 page long).
By Marcelo
“You forgott that linux is a mundial success and other foreign linux companies will continue to develop their distributions. American “justice” is dumb like their president…
Linux was ceated by a Finland’s man, KDE is basically a german project, and there are many other linux distributions, like the german SuSe, the french mandrake, the brazilian Conectiva, and so.”
Marcelo,
Shut up. You make foreigners look stupid. You seem to be stuck in the notion that copyright law isn’t international. Hate to say it to you but you can’t steal intellectual property in any of those countries you mentioned and not face judicial actions from the country your violating copyright laws in.
Additionally, it helps to actually say things that are useful when your trying to make a point. American’s are dumb – isn’t exactly a reason for why RedHat will not be affected by this lawsuit.
@sam
You obviously are trying to scramble and find a way out of your contradicting statements, and are becoming more irrational and taking about stuff that has nothing to do with my initial comments.
Let me dumb it down for you, since you don’t see your own contradicting statements.
If you read my post again, I’m saying is that this lawsuit could possibly cause companies to rethink/question adpoting GNU/Linux (at least temporarily). There’s a lot of uncertainty out there on how all the pieces fit until this thing is over and done with.
If you think that decreasing investor/market confidence in a company (RH, Suse, whoever) has no correlation to long-term strategic business decisions, than you need a good whack with the clue stick.
…this is how we act: Corporations that never really supportted Linux and only use it to get money, and try to grab the nonpaid hardwork of many people….pathetic to say the less…
Regardless of the inentions, legal niceties, and the fine arguments above, this action works as an attack on the open source movement.
The answer is simple. Boycott SCO and their friends.
“Marcelo,
Shut up. You make foreigners look stupid.”
Hahahaha. How typical for the mentality of some people of the US. Everyone is a foreigner, even if they live in their own country …
Funny
The old IBM interview that you quote, and keeps getting quoted over and over again, is from a IBM developer, who cannot and does not speak for IBM, as a corporation. Do you really believe that IBM would have invested the money, time, and self-identification with Linux if they believed that Linux is a potential IP timebomb ?
Get real. They are paying developers to work on Linux to help Linux support their computers, including the paycheck of the man who did this interview. Why would they do this if they were afraid of potential IP suits. IBM does not want to distribute Linux, because a) they could make no money from doing so-relative to what they earn with AIX, b) Linux is not their baby, they jumped on the bandwagon and are supporting it, but they will never control it, c) by distributing their own Linux distribution they would be acting against their own self-interest -firstly if the did ditribute Linux they would only distribute with/for and only support it for there computers-if they developed code which would better support their computers and they distributed Linux why would they not seperately liscence such IP as to prevent their potential competitors, Redhat and SuSE, from effectively competing with them on their own platform ? IBM knows that the only competition there is in the Linux world is in terms of support and to this end IBM has agreements with SuSE and Redhat to offer support for Linux on their platforms.
The man in the interview belongs to the generation of oh so cynical developers who have become jaded by years in the IP industry-whereas IBM, as a corporation, has already accepted the fact that Linux is for all intensive purposes belongs to the Commons, ie. everybody and nobody. Do you know why GPL is called copy-left software ? One reason for this name is because GPL-based software is only IP in the sense that companies which base their buisness off closed-source propietary software cannot benefit from GPL software. GPL software being something which propietary closed-source software cannot use or “embrace or extend” renders GPL relative to such corporations depenedent upon such practices as IP, as something which coporations cannot own, take credit for, or control.
GPL software is fundamentally anti-IP- the goal of GPL, born out of bitter experiences in the world of IP, is that noone ever will own GPL software, and software liscensced under GPL belongs evermore to the Commons and once it becomes part of the Commons it is for all intensive purposes even more “closed” than propietary closed-source software for corporation interested in acquiring it as IP- but for programmers, developers and enthusiasts beyond the corporate world it is the most “free” form of software which exists, and free in a real sense of the word, in that it entails duties and obligations in addition to the rights which it entails- and the principal duty and obligation of GPL software developers is to commit any and or all changes back to the Commons and to religiously safeguard their software from propitary corporate cooptation.
This notion that “lurking in the millions of lines of code lies patented propitary IP” is the FUD which MS and it’s cohorts have beeen reaming down everyones throats for years now. In that you lend credibility to this- your are in effect nothing more than spokespersons for this FUD campaign. Luckily most of the really big IT corporations have gotten over this and realize that it is a red-herring argument, in fact MS and now SCO, through its own sheer stupidity, are practically the only ones left who buy into this FUD. The only IP in GNU/Linux is the GPL which itself is *NOT* IP-unless you want to try to buy it out, coopt it, pervert it or steal it from the Commons. This FUD is like a ghost, which rears its ugly head from time to time and even though it is long dead it continues to haunt us, ressurected by dying IP firms looking for financial salvation.
Sam and Vince: without people who argue like you do this ghost of IP days long past would stop haunting us contemporaries with such FUD-if you believe your concerns about supposedly potential IP misuse in GNU/Linux are greater than that of IBM,HP, Dell, SuSE, Redhat and many other corporations and an ever-increasing number of national/regional/local governments which have invested huge sums of money and self-identification in GNU/Linux then you are blowing smoke up your own *ss.
Hahahaha. How typical for the mentality of some people of the US. Everyone is a foreigner, even if they live in their own country …
From the original quote
By Marcelo (IP: —.user.veloxzone.com.br) –
Funny. So, since you missed the point, stop making weak generalizations. You are the one who is the idiot.
>>>>If you read my post again, I’m saying is that this lawsuit could possibly cause companies to rethink/question adpoting GNU/Linux (at least temporarily). There’s a lot of uncertainty out there on how all the pieces fit until this thing is over and done with.
>>>>If you think that decreasing investor/market confidence in a company (RH, Suse, whoever) has no correlation to long-term strategic business decisions, than you need a good whack with the clue stick.
If you take a look at all my comments, I clearly talked about people who sells linux and people who deploys them, both of them are going to be affected by them. I never said anything about “decreasing investor/market confidence in a company (RH, Suse, whoever) has no correlation to long-term strategic business decisions”. You misread my original comments — all I said was that the companies (like IBM) that thought about these questions regarding potential problems with IP risks ahead of time WON’T be affected much by these current IP lawsuits because they offloaded those risks to somebody else already. I never did disagree with you, I just refined your comments further.
>>>>The old IBM interview that you quote, and keeps getting quoted over and over again, is from a IBM developer, who cannot and does not speak for IBM, as a corporation.
The IBM guy who was interviewed —- he ain’t some 25 year old recent college grad who just gotten hired by IBM and writes all these useless bloggers and commentaries on various websites (like you and me). This guy, Dr. Karl-Heinz Strassemeyer, has a PhD. and heads the IBM team on the S/390 linux port.
Sure Dr. Strassemeyer doesn’t speak for the whole IBM, but my point is that they all got the same memo from the IBM lawyers regarding linux development. Everything they do had to be cleared by the same IBM legal department — even as minor as a personal demostration to linus himself.
>>>>Do you really believe that IBM would have invested the money, time, and self-identification with Linux if they believed that Linux is a potential IP timebomb ?
Why not? As long as IBM themselves are not sitting on the timebomb itself.
>>>>Get real. They are paying developers to work on Linux to help Linux support their computers, including the paycheck of the man who did this interview. Why would they do this if they were afraid of potential IP suits.
>>>>This notion that “lurking in the millions of lines of code lies patented propitary IP” is the FUD which MS and it’s cohorts have beeen reaming down everyones throats for years now.
You are the one who has to get real, IBM brings in billion dollar + from their patent warchest each year, that’s why they care about IP risks. IP risks AREN’T limited to avoiding lawsuits — IP risks also include protection of their own IP assets.
>>>>The man in the interview belongs to the generation of oh so cynical developers who have become jaded by years in the IP industry-whereas IBM, as a corporation, has already accepted the fact that Linux is for all intensive purposes belongs to the Commons, ie. everybody and nobody.
The man wants changes to GPL because IBM lawyers won’t allow them to do certain things.
>>>>Do you know why GPL is called copy-left software ? One reason for this name is because GPL-based software is only IP in the sense that companies which base their buisness off closed-source propietary software cannot benefit from GPL software.
Precisely — that’s why IBM is a computer consulting company right now and that’s why IBM is embracing linux.
All I am saying is that IBM, the biggest linux cheerleader, has a very well thought out business plan.
>>>>if you believe your concerns about supposedly potential IP misuse in GNU/Linux are greater than that of IBM,HP, Dell, SuSE, Redhat and many other corporations and an ever-increasing number of national/regional/local governments which have invested huge sums of money and self-identification in GNU/Linux then you are blowing smoke up your own *ss.
You are still missing the point. It’s NOT a bad thing that there are “supposedly potential IP misuse in GNU/Linux” —- it’s only a bad thing if you didn’t think it through ahead of time and not offload the legal risks to somebody else.
IBM/HP/Dell knows that linux distributors take the legal risks, so they don’t create their own linux distributions. RedHat and SuSE knows that some of their linux customers can run SCO Unix application binaries if their linux customers copy certain files from their SCO Unix to their linux servers. RedHat and SuSE also knows that it’s illegal to do so — so RedHat and SuSE don’t include these certain files in their distro but tells you how to do it yourselves (but RedHat and SuSE also covered their own asses by putting into the fine print telling you that you should contact SCO for licensing).
Hm. You should know that Brazil signed the international treaties on copyrights and IPs. And YES, SCO can sue companies all over the world, including Conectiva, Mandrake etc etc etc.
The only Linux distributors to escape is those located in… hm… North Korea, maybe.
The only IP claims that will hold up in court against Linux are instances where actual source code from UNIX are in the kernel, which is extrememly unlikely.
Remember when the BSD version of UNIX was under legal attack from AT&T and everyone abandoned it in droves?
This is one of the major reasons that Linux actually rose above the BSDs to dominate open source UNIX.
However, these lawsuits did not hold up in the end, and thus one can assume that the lawsuits against Linux will not hold up either.
Yes SCO will try to attack anyone they can, they are a technologically bankrupt company that has chosen the path of using their legal department as a revenue generator. (Remember when Caldara bought Digital Research so that they could sue Microsoft over unfair business practices regarding DR-DOS…that’s the ONLY reason Caldara is still around today.)
Just some thoughts
-bytes256