“The purpose of this complaint is to demonstrate that Red Hat’s technologies do not infringe any intellectual property of SCO and to hold SCO accountable for its unfair and deceptive actions.” The article is here.
fuzzyping also points to
this story.
Red Hat Files Complaint Against SCO
About The Author
Adam Scheinberg
Technology Executive • Web Developer • Father • Foodie • Music Snob • OS enthusiast
Follow me on Mastodon @[email protected]
First post! Anyway a fund to help combat SCO sounds good. Hope all works out well in the end
It would seem to me if SCO were interested in proving their case and collecting royalties/lisence fees, they would be quiet about their plans and encourage people to use Linux (or at least not discourage them) while they obtained the court orders they say they are after.
Instead, they are going around spreading FUD.
just my 2 cents,
Darren
I will be contributing a few bucks to the fund.
It will be nice to see SCO spanked 🙂
I wondered why Red Hat, or one of the other big guys, took so long to do this in the US. Finally, SCO is being pummelled from all sides, all around the globe.
seems obvious to me, they are a puppet for another large software corporation who are definitely anti-linux.
SCO stock was down 15% today after the press release. It’s about time!
Wow. I was wondering why RH was sitting in the wings on this one. Nice to see that they put their money where their ideology is-the Open Source Now Fund is a good idea!
Kudos Red Hat. Although i’ve ditched Red Hat in favor of Mandrake Linux I tip my hat to them for starting this fund. Personally I think SCO needs to put up or shut up. Personally I’d rather IBM just buy SCO because i’d trust them a lot better with UNIX than SCO. If IBM owns UNIX code then they will aid Apple(Mac OS X) and Linux. At this point we need to get past this SCO battle then do a major world vs microsoft approach.
I wouldn’t doubt that Red Hat has done a code review just in case and it is probably finished with positive results.
Topspeed has just shown us the troll he really is.
I wonder is his buddy will support him through this one. PLease ignore him from now on.
…I’m not sure if that’s the real TopSpeed. He certainly has the tone right, but the IP address doesn’t match.
On to the topic: I think this is a great move on the part of RedHat, and I seriously hope that:
a) Users will be able to contribute to the fund, and
b) Other distro makers will chip in.
I think Redhat are taking the initiative no other Linux company has taken (Distro maker), and one of the first posts on this topic is that they took too long to do it. Damn people, what you want Redhat to do. They only did it in their best interests, and not yours. If you personally felt the need, you should have done it yourself. Redhat is a shareholder owned company, and maybe had to run a few background checks and consult with their attorneys before they could make such a filing. This is possibly to prevent SCO form attacking them directly in the first place in case SCO decided it needed an example.
These things cost money and we should applaud Redhat for taking the steps. Hpefully justice will prevail in this case.
I know it is fashionable to scream “terrorist group” everytime you want to turn public opinion against someone, but this group is too educated for that trick to work. Since SCO has yet to produce one shred of evidence of stolen IP, your claims are rather bold. The fact is that they probably won’t. The amorphousness of their claim, and the fact that it expands and becomes more amorphous every day, is a significant point which shows they are hoping to spray flack everywhere in hopes of hitting something.
I don’t like GPL either, by the way, but the groups like Red Hat, Mandrake and others are the best bet for competition on the x86 platform against Microsoft. Did you forget about the fact that “competition” is supposed to be the driving force behind a healthy capitalist market? Thought so…
I think i’ve seen your “Lin-Queda” crap in other forums somewhere and the people there were just annoyed too. You must have too much time on your hands to dish out crap like this.
TopSpeed sounds like the Iraqi information minister. “And SCO will be dishing out humiliating disgrace to all the Linux users, dancing on the broken GPL CD-ROMs littering their graves!” 😉
Actually, I found your post to be very funny. You are kidding…right? It reminds me of when my Dad starts talking about the democrats. LOL!!
Anyhoo, if you’re not kidding…you’re way off base. I will not go any further to support my statement, ’cause everyone else here know’s your posistion doesn’t hold water. If you were serious please sit back take a breath and just think about it and then tell us where you were wrong, and we’ll forgive you. LOL!!
Ignore the Idiot.
I want to thank Red Hat for doing the right thing. It’s been a wonderful day. I will contribute $100 to the legal fund as that is as much as I can give right now.
The type of solidarity among users and companies in open source speaks volumes about the integrity of the companies involving in the development of GNU/Linux.
I don’t think it’s top speed after all. Someone is trying to impersonate him. I just hope that when the REAL topspeed gets back he’s pissed off
But, if everyone thinks this si so good why did Redhat fall almost 4% today.
Maybe I missed it, but is there anyway setup for us normal folks to contribute? I don’t have much, but I’d gladly give up a few 6-packs of beer to contribute to this cause. Go, RedHat, go!
I don’t like GPL either,
No flame meant here, but what don’t you like about the GPL? I’ve noticed a lot of anti-GPL sentiment here on OSNews (especially from some of the staff). Again, no flame intended. I’m really curious…
“Sco shall previal against this Lin-Queda threat to the free world. Sco’s IP patents shall and will be protected and the evidence will be brought foward to once again show the world the evils of the Lin-Queda terror-software-socialist movement. RedHat being an instrument of that Lin-Queda terror-software-socialist movement shall by made a fool of in a quick and timely manner. Once SCO presents it’s evidence to the SEC to show it’s valid claims. From then on I am almost certian that the honesty and reality of SCO’s violated IP will be proven for SEC to see. It would be only fitting if the SEC then turns it’s gaze on this Lin-Queda software company known as RedHat. Let RedHat be the example of the valid-ness and IP claims to Linux as a whole from which SCO gave birth too.”
Oh, come on, Top Speed, you don’t have to keep it all bottled up inside! Tell us how you really feel! You know, you messages could use an injection of that born-again, second-belly-button, fire-and-brimstone passion. How else would we know how to fight Osama Bin Linus’ IP-stealing conspiracy? Tell us. Light our souls on fire, man. You can do it, I know you can!
From a coding perspective, I think GPL is very troubling to a company that wants to use a library without having to worry about releasing all of their own code. I would rather just avoid the minefield. Ironically I’m probably going to start contributing to a GPL’d project–GNUStep, but I think that there are better open source licensing schemes around.
To quote Eric Raymond: “The real disagreement between OSI and FSF, the real axis of discord between those who speak of “open source” and “free software”, is not over principles. It’s over tactics and rhetoric. The open-source movement is largely composed not of people who reject RMS’s ideals, but rather of people who reject his *rhetoric*.”
Check out page 2, paragraphs 4 and 5.
http://lwn.net/images/ns/rh-complaint.pdf
I think GPL is very troubling to a company that wants to use a library without having to worry about releasing all of their own code.
Well, it depends on what licence the lib was released under. If it was the Lesser GPL, then the company can link their closed source-code against the open-souce library without problems. I believe, and I could be wrong, that even if the lib was full-on GPL, and the company made no changes to it, they could still link their product without any problems. Only if they make changes to the library do they have to release those changes.
But, again, I could be wrong.
I release on the code I write under the GPL, because I want to ensure that the code that I write will always be free (not that anything I do is worth that much
). But its a personal descision. I wish I knew some IP lawyers. I’d like to get thier opinion on the GPL…
You cannot link against closed-source with the GPL. Only the LGPL.
-Erwos
Lin Quada, Osama Bin Linus? At least the names are getting clever.
I was thinking that computer security didn’t have much to do with terrorism, but if a terrorist can access a corporate bank account, then he could use the money to fund Terrorism. Other than that, the most they could do is inconvenience us.
Now the irony, calling RedHat a tool for socialism when they’re one of the few successful BUSINESSES. They’re publicly traded on NASDAQ.
I would like to point out that if you are the original author of a GPL’d product you can still liscence the code under something else if someone requests it. The only thing you cannot do is revoke the GPL on the existing code that’s out there.
Jared
You can send an email here:
[email protected]
And ask them about contributing.
Should have been obvious that nobody would buy scox anyway. But, if redhat can sue, then so can every other linux distributer. No way that anybody would buy scox for any price now.
IBM lawsuit doesn’t even start until April 2005.
SCO is having way too much fun. I hope other companies sue their silly asses too. And please contribute whatever you can to the fund.
I think the header sums it up for me.
I am from valp.net, check all previous threads for confirmation.
In fact, I find this interesting, at long last at least someone as actually trying to defend Linux. The obvious question is, what took so long?
If I was a Red Hat customer, I would at least feel a little better since before now there was no one doing anything to combat SCO.
I haven’t really read the article yet, will post again after gathering more info, thanks.
top speed
I am from vole.net, check all previous threads for confirmation.
In fact, I find this interesting, at long last at least someone as actually trying to defend SCOX. The obvious question is, what took so long?
If I was a SCOX customer, I would at least feel a little better since before now there was no one doing anything to combat SCOX.
I haven’t really read the article yet, in fact I never read any article, will post again after gathering more info, thanks.
top speed
To further protect the integrity of Open Source software and the Open Source community, Red Hat has established the Open Source Now Fund. The purpose of the fund will be to cover legal expenses associated with infringement claims brought against companies developing software under the GPL license and non-profit organizations supporting the efforts of companies developing software under a GPL license…
Sounds like they need money. Probably a lot. If you donate, does this mean that your linux was still ‘free’? Is each person expected to donate more than the cost to buy a copy of Unix? If so, why not just buy Unix instead, and forget about lawsuits altogether?
Also, who will control this “Open Source Now” fund, Red Hat? Do they have other “open source” projects besides Linux, or would this fund better named the “Red Hat Legal” fund?
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/030804/linux_cloud_2.html
The article correctly points out Red Hat is still not promising to protect their customers, who are still liable if SCO is right. Red Hat may want to try to stop SCO’s claims, but they really have no evidence of their own, and if SCO is right, this is just digging Red Hat’s hole deeper. Red Hat should have at least viewed the supposedly duplicate code before filing a lawsuit that the claims are unsubstantiated, because there is really no way for them to know if they are or not.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/08/04/cz_dl_0804linux.html?partner=yahoo…
LMAO @ this part:
Linux geeks howled a bit, but then wrote off SCO as a bunch of sleazebags and went back to playing live-action roleplaying (LARP) games in their mothers’ basements, or whatever it is they do when they’re not writing device drivers and complaining about clueless end users.
This part was more to the point:
[Red Hat] has gone to court asking a judge to declare that his product does not infringe on SCO’s intellectual property. It’s a bit like asking a judge to declare that you didn’t rob a bank, even before the police have charged you with a crime.
Now if Suse would follow suit (so to speak) and sue in a German court – Grin!!
RH claims they want to expedite the process, because they might can get a quicker response to a complaint in Delaware. But if SCO is proven right, they would actually only be hastening their own demise. Quite a risk to take, considering they have not even been willing to view the duplicate code for themselves yet.
If you donate, does this mean that your linux was still ‘free’?
Linux is free as in speech, not (necessarily) free as in beer.
Personally, I’ve bought two editions of Mandrake (8.0 and 9.1) and I’m a member of the Mandrake Club.
Freedom is more important than saving a few bucks. Linux represents freedom, while MS represents lock-in. That pretty much sums it up.
[i]”From a coding perspective, I think GPL is very troubling to a company that wants to use a library without having to worry about releasing all of their own code. I would rather just avoid the minefield.”</>
That is precisely why the FSF developed the LGPL (Lesser or Library GPL) so that you could publish libraries under a FSF licence that could be linked to commercial closed source software.
And again corporations using GPL software to develop their own in house use do not have to release the code.
Not only is the IBM stuff probably stolen Top Speed but I am beginning to have suspicions of even more DIRECT theft here. I remember that several people who have actually signed the NDA and seen the evidence reported that some of this stuff DID NOT HAVE COMMENTS. As a proprietary as well as open source programmer I keep up with all the latest hacking and illegal reverse engineering tools to try to protect my proprietary work from them. (For those not really familiar with me I am an independent programmer who develops open source and proprietary Shareware software in the areas of games, edutainment, recreational software and programmers libraries.)
Amongst the latest of these reverse engineering tools is true decompilation from Executables to Assembly to C source code. This decompilation however LEAVES OUT THE COMMENTS because they were ignored during the original compilation of the siftware. What do you think about this possibility for some of the stolen code?
“From a coding perspective, I think GPL is very troubling to a company that wants to use a library without having to worry about releasing all of their own code. I would rather just avoid the minefield.”
That is precisely why the FSF developed the LGPL (Lesser or Library GPL) so that you could publish libraries under a FSF licence that could be linked to commercial closed source software.
And again corporations using GPL software to develop their own in house use do not have to release the code.
…my ISP’s acting up again (fscking Videotron). I won’t be able to counter-troll this time! See you soon!
I remember that several people who have actually signed the NDA and seen the evidence reported that some of this stuff DID NOT HAVE COMMENTS.
Huh? First of all, have you never seen a lazy programer who leaves out comments? Personally, I ran into them all the time in college…
Secondly, I don’t understand your comment. Are you saying that people who signed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) turned around and disclosed something? Makes little sence to me.
Besides, I’d think there would be more evidence, than just a lack of comments, of use of a de-compiler… for instance, variable names… I don’t think our human-readable variable names are stored in machine-code…
Coral Snake I have read multiple articles (such as “SCO owns your computer” on byte.com) that refer to code other than IBM’s being in Linux. In fact, Monday a week ago when SCO indicated their intent to hold Linux users liable, SCO said that a ‘majority’ of the duplicate code they have found is from sources other than IBM, such as other Unix licensees.
After looking into this complaint by Red Hat, IMO they are not very confident in winning or they wouldn’t be asking for donations to fund it. Check that Forbes article above, the RH CEO says himself:
We want the truth. We want them to stop engaging in unfair business practices. Basically what we’re saying is put up or shut up.
In other words they don’t even know if there is stolen code or not, and are asking for donations just so the evidence is brought more into public. But as a Red Hat customer, you are still not protected. Conceivably, you could end up paying Red Hat three times before it’s over – once when you bought it, again when they asked for donations for this lawsuit, third when SCO comes after you if they win their trials. No thanks, I would take that money and invest it in Unix, Apple or even M$ instead, and leave the headaches of Linux behind.
RH claims they want to expedite the process, because they might can get a quicker response to a complaint in Delaware. But if SCO is proven right, they would actually only be hastening their own demise. Quite a risk to take, considering they have not even been willing to view the duplicate code for themselves yet.
No. This will force SCO to put up, and bring the code to the fore. They say the code cannot be removed from Linx, so why are they not coming forward with the infringing code. If SCO has some of their old kernels lying around, which I would assume they do, these will contain ample evidence. All that would need to be determined is whether that code was put there by IBM or Redhat or, most likely IMHO, SCO if it is really infringing. And whether it is really infringing on anything. By the time they do this, Redhat ships a clean kernel, wuickly disproving the claim that it couldn’t be done. SCO cries foul, they say, wait a minute, you said it couldn’t be done, now you complain that its done!!??!!?
Ok, bottom line, Redhat doesn’t have to go down. Unless Boies is very creative, creative enough to create a contract issue between SCO and Redhat. As I have said before, I think copyright law has been misused in its application to software. Before software, published works enjoyed copyright, now some unpublished ones, like SCO code are trying to enjoy that protection. I would have thought people had more sense than that. To me it seems that copyright were meant to protect works which would otherwise be in wide circulation against others jumping on and cashing in. But for non published works, I do not know how it works. Could someone please enlighten me. (As to how it makes sense that is)
i have been wondering as of late why no one from
the linux community fought back against sco.
i believe the germans did this if i am not mistaken
and were able to make sco if not stop their suit
as least keep their mouths shut till it goes through
the courts.
red hat was probably on sco’s list for attack being
that they have so much cas available.
wouldnt it be wonderful if they treated THE KDE
PROGRAMMERS with respect. i see this as a move
they felt they needed to make, on the other hand
i would expect them to make quite a heyday for
their pr reasons.
maybe red hat carries the banner for freedom for
linux. this of course is not what they would actually
be doing but it would be a good pr move.
think of all the people they could fool.
Come off it Coral Snake – You are getting as bad as your friend top speed.
“I remember that several people who have actually signed the NDA and seen the evidence reported that some of this stuff DID NOT HAVE COMMENTS”. Every interview I have read with people who signed the NDA said the 80 lines of code yes just 80 lines of code) they were shown contained identical comments.
It is well documented that Caldera/SCO was openly submiting code to the Linux kernel at the same time their then CEO Ransom Love was talking about “Unifying Linux and Unix” showing they had the same stategic objective as IBM in replacing Unix by Linux in the long run. It is clear that Caldera/SCO was distributing the Linux kernel under the GPL thus accepting the GPL and their senior executives knew what was going on when their software engineers openly using Caldera/SCO email address and providing their job titles within the company submited code to kernel.org.
As for IBM they had every right to donate their own copyrighted code to be GPL’ed in the Linux kenrel – or maybe you don’t believe that you can give away your own “intellectual property”.
Come on Coral Snake – admit what eveyone else except you and top speed have come to realize – SCO is just a FUD stalking horse for Redmond in its war with Linux and IBM.
Coral Snake I believe you were inferring (which angry bob questioned) that if the code had been reversed engineered via dissasembler etc, the comments would have been lost, even though the code could be found. It is possible that some contributions were reverse engineered, rather than stolen from original products, but it would still be ‘stolen’. I think there will be numerous ways/types of stolen code appears in Linux, but until we see for sure, no one knows.
This will force SCO to put up, and bring the code to the fore…By the time they do this, Redhat ships a clean kernel, wuickly disproving the claim that it couldn’t be done.
Actually, the code will almost certainly remained sealed within the privacy of the court, and Red Hat will definitely not be allowed to remove it if this Delaware court finds it belongs to SCO (no one but SCO (or who they allow) could, but SCO doesn’t even have to, nor do they probably want to, they just want $ from whoever loaded it).
It is well documented that Caldera/SCO was openly submiting code to the Linux kernel at the same time their then CEO Ransom Love was talking about “Unifying Linux and Unix” showing they had the same stategic objective as IBM in replacing Unix by Linux in the long run. It is clear that Caldera/SCO was distributing the Linux kernel under the GPL thus accepting the GPL and their senior executives knew what was going on when their software engineers openly using Caldera/SCO email address and providing their job titles within the company submited code to kernel.org.
I see your starting to take your posts more seriously. Good. But even IF Caldera did possibly make some actual linux contributions, something I am not ready to concede, that does not mean the entire set of their code becomes a free for all for linux hacks to pilage and add into Linux at their own free will. All it really takes is one person to have copied any part of proprietary Unix into Linux and then Linux is illegal. To what extent, and how much damages are incurred might be small in that instance, but I think there are multiple instances from multiple sources.
Actually, the code will almost certainly remained sealed within the privacy of the court, and Red Hat will definitely not be allowed to remove it if this Delaware court finds it belongs to SCO (no one but SCO (or who they allow) could, but SCO doesn’t even have to, nor do they probably want to, they just want $ from whoever loaded it).
Read up on the BSD case will you. A judge cannot say, “I have found that some code which was put there by IBM is in your kernel. I know you had no idea it could have been there because you never licensed UNIX from SCO, but I do not care about that. You shall not be allowed to remove the infringing code because then SCO will not be able to collect license fees” No one wants SCO code in the Linux kernel. Somehow, I think they are the only ones who actually want it there. The GPL says something very explicit when it comes to handling such. Stop distributing it. Licensing it entails distributing it and this entails GPLing code there. SCo has to be very creative to avoid the GPL on that one. Besides moving the code out of the kernel to interface via a LGPL layer maybe, they cannot license the use in Linux, because the GPL will not allow that. Once they remove the code form the kernel, the kernel is legit. I cannot imagine a court saying, you have stolen property you didn’t know was stolen, but you will not be allowed to give it back, you will have to pay the original owner for it. That is truly absurd.
But then again, I am not from USA, so what may be strange here may the your daily bread there. It sounds absurd to me, and the decision to remove the files in BSD, was it 3 files, seem to support my hypothesis that they will likely be asked to remove code which was found to infringe in court.
Are you implying the court will refuse the right to identify the evidence. That is also patently absurd, pun intended. How can a court hide evidence. SCO bringing out evidence in court means its there for everyone to see. So was how the 3 files got removed from BSD.
Somehow, I think they are the only ones who actually want it there.
I won’t argue that, in fact I wouldn’t even argue if you said IBM wanted it there.
But complete ‘file’ removal is much easier than ‘areas within the kernel’, if that is in fact what we are dealing with. SCO could very easily get an injuction preventing what portions of the kernel are impacted, because it is their ‘trade secret’. Best that Linux could probaby hope for is to have some programmers be allowed to remove it, but never be allowed to work on Linux again because they would then be ‘tainted’ after having seen the proprietary Unix code.
And I would like you to see the first significant post I made on the “other” forum we post to about the do do bird (they call themselves penguins) cult and their leadership.
you will find it on this thread:
Questioning SCO: A Hard Look at Nebulous Claims
and it is a part of a reply I made to “B2K” (I think you know what the real screen name is here) about this “free software” cult attempting to bring their slashfilth “humor” THERE!!!!
I have question regarding you statment: ” After looking into this complaint by Red Hat, IMO they are not very confident in winning or they wouldn’t be asking for donations to fund it.”
The following statment is a direct quote from the article: Red Hat Takes Aim at Infringement Claims.
“To further protect the integrity of Open Source software and the Open Source community, Red Hat has established the Open Source Now Fund. The purpose of the fund will be to cover legal expenses associated with infringement claims brought against companies developing software under the GPL license and non-profit organizations supporting the efforts of companies developing software under a GPL license. Red Hat has pledged one million dollars to be provided as funding in this initiative.”
Where does it say they are going to use money from the newly established “Open Source Now Fund” for their suit against SCO?
Did I miss something here? Isn’t the “Open Source Now Fund” fund being establish by a million dollar donation that has nothing to do with the RH law suit against SCO? Why would RH establish the fund only to drain it for their own law suit?
Why wouldn’t RH just come out and ask for donations for a law suit?
Can someone explain how that fund will work?
“All it really takes is one person to have copied any part of proprietary Unix into Linux and then Linux is illegal.”
Wrong again stop speed – if (and there is no evidence that this is the case) that there is any unauthorised copying of SCO copyright code into the linux kernel – it is not “illegal” there is a copyright infringement which is not the same thing.
What it does mean is that under the GPL the Linux kernel could not continue to be distributed without out the offending code being removed. Legally SCO would have no claim on existing users (see law professor Eben Moglen’s statement for the OSDL)
As Maynard has pointed out – on the precedent of the BSD case, in such circumstances the Judge would probably order the removal of the infringing code anyway. The kernel could then be once again be distributed by RH, SuSe, Mandrake, Debian, you or me and the entire world.
“World Domination by World Cooperation” – John “Maddog” Hall
Why wouldn’t RH just come out and ask for donations for a law suit?
They are, which is what this is all about. They announced today they are suing SCO, and that a fund has been setup to accept donations. Yes they started out with a million (how much does the bank get of that) which could be a drop in the bucket on something like this.
If you haven’t please do. RH’s lawyers know their stuff. This is not a joke. There can be only one outcome from this. SCO’s evidence will have to be revealed, then they’ll pay RH for having exagerated and fabricated evidence. Then SuSe and the others would follow the example. Every Linux distro that can demonstrate the slightest harm will follow.
Remember the reason RH did not sue until now was because they needed to be able to demonstrate harm done. They have that now. As a plus they had enough time to frame their case.
McBride, bend!
Coral Snake said:
I’ll just say “snail eating surrender monkeys” here for the curious and leave it at that.
Uhhh, yeah, that’s awesome, you don’t like the French either. You know you have a serious problem with politics when you abandon a solution and your reason is where it’s from. You should go ahead and throw out all those neat items around you house that are manufactured in China, throw out a large portion of your clothes that are created in sweatshops by small children, and never ever eat at McDonalds because they’re contributing to the destruction of the Amazon rain forest in Brazil.
Getting on-topic, though, I’m glad that someone is finally taking some initiative in telling SCO to shut the hell up or actually do something. Companies should not be allowed to take advantage of Linux’s (Or any other product’s) vulnerable spot (Uncertainty in the general public’s eye, as well as many corporation heads) with immunity, especially considering how drawn-out the legal process is.
When all this is over the SCO shareholders will probably sue the SCO executives and the Canopy group in a civil RICO (corporate racketering) case. The stock manipulation and the cashing in on it via the Vultus purchase (also owned by Canopy) makes it their investors’ only hope after the SCO stock crashes as the hollowness of SCO’s case against IBM and loudmouthed FUD against Linux becomes clear.
Also I expect that then their neo-liberal groupies will quieten down.
“Red Hat will definitely not be allowed to remove it if this Delaware court finds it belongs to SCO (no one but SCO (or who they allow) could, but SCO doesn’t even have to, nor do they probably want to, they just want $ from whoever loaded it).”
I won’t address your technological understanding, but your comprehension of the law is miniscule…. natch, non-existent.
Code that’s already been stolen doesn’t need to be kept secret–it would be a further violation to release that code, but there is no reason Linux contributors wouldn’t be told which lines of code are offending and then would be able to remove the code. This has happened before. It’s very obvious. The most important aspect being: the initial infringement must be remedied. The code doesn’t stay there to infect and rot away at the code. Hell, do you know anyone still running Windows? Windows has been found to have done this a couple of times–don’t you think the parties involved would have chosen your ludicrous theory–to say, we’ll jsut leave that code there forever, your code is now illegal and unusable. Simply retarded, dude. SOrry, but you should be told since you are swaggering around like the expert. But you are completely wrong.
That’s the problem with being a litigious fool, it can work against you as well.
Ignoring your insults…
Windows has been found to have done this a couple of times–don’t you think the parties involved would have chosen your ludicrous theory–to say, we’ll jsut leave that code there forever, your code is now illegal and unusable.
No, it’s different, because I don’t ‘own’ Windows when I load it on my computer. I am only licensed to use it, so I am not liable for what may be in it, M$ is.
Linux is different (you all love to claim), but more different than even you realize in that complete responsibility is taken by the user when they load it, and no warranty is given by Linus Torvalds, by Red Hat or anyone. Even this donation funded suit doesn’t help you users any if SCO owned code is in Linux, because niether Red Hat or anyone in the Linux world is willing to protect the customers. If you knew what they know, you wouldn’t either.
Not only will my company donate what we can to the fund, we will now seriously consider changing distros. It’s been a very tight race in distros as far as we could see it when we started, but this puts Red Hat out in front.
The only difference I see is that one is a bit more heavy-handed in his trolling.
And am I the only one who sees the irony in Coral Snake’s calling linvocates “cultish”, while engaging in textbook blind nationalism himself?
Ah, for the good ‘ol days of usenet, when trolls were clever and subtle, rather than clearly-biased children substituting stereotypical cheap shots for debate.
They say the code cannot be removed from Linx, so why are they not coming forward with the infringing code.
Very astute. I remember that the first reason SCO gave as to why they would not reveal the code is that they didn’t want programmers to go and change it before the trial (which didn’t make sense, since it’s pretty easy to find archival kernels and such).
Now they’re saying that there is so much code that Linux could not possibly be rewritten and still be enterprise-ready. The contradiction between those two statements is so obvious that even the wintrolls should see it.
All it goes to show is that SCO really doesn’t have any credibility – they’ve changed their story so many times it’s not even funny. They have yet to show one shred of evidence that there is such code…because, in fact, there isn’t. Linus was right, they are full of it, and in any case they willfully and knowingly released their code under the GPL on their public FTP site.
Any way you look at it, SCO doesn’t have a case. I do hope that RedHat gets awarded heavy punitive damage and that McBride and co. get investigated by the SEC for their dubious stock manipulations.
Actually, the code will almost certainly remained sealed within the privacy of the court,
I doubt it, since the code has already been published. In any case, it would be pretty easy to know what code has been removed by comparing a “tainted” kernel with a “clean” one.
But of course this won’t happen because there is NO stolen code in Linux.
(Innocent until proven guilty, i.e. it’s up to SCO to prove wrongdoing, not the other way around.)
“Linux is different (you all love to claim), but more different than even you realize in that complete responsibility is taken by the user when they load it, and no warranty is given by Linus Torvalds, by Red Hat or anyone. Even this donation funded suit doesn’t help you users any if SCO owned code is in Linux, because niether Red Hat or anyone in the Linux world is willing to protect the customers. If you knew what they know, you wouldn’t either.”
You are just reduced to a jibbering non arguement -stop speed
Bye the way ever read an MS EULA.
Give up go home stop speed your out of your depth.
complete responsibility is taken by the user when they load it
Nope. If there is infringing code in Linux, the end user is not responsible for using it. The distributor might be, but that’s for the courts to decide. The person who would have put the offending code in is responsible for sure (and this will be easy to know, since all contributions are recorded), and that’s about the only affirmation you can make.
Unless you can show me the exact passage in a law book that indicates that this could be, I shall continue to believe that, as usual, you are full of it – just like SCO.
I don’t like the GPL for a number of reasons.
First, I’m a nice guy, and if someone can make money of code that I am giving away for free then good for them. With something like the BSD, what *I* release will always be free. If people use my code, regardless of whether it be in open source or closed source programs, then I’m happy because I’ve helped someone.
If, on the other hand, I want to get something out of the code I write, then it will definatly be a proprietary license that I use. I have no faith in people profiting off of GPL code.
So in other words, I don’t like the GPL because I see no point in it. Obviously others like it, and that’s fine. But I really can’t stand this ‘Free’ attitude that GPL supporters have. To me, GPL code is very much ‘for cost’ code. That cost is having to release any modifications you make. It may not be as big a cost as a proprietary license, but it’s still very much a sort of barter system.
I really don’t care if you believe it or not, because I know 90% of you would never pay SCO a dime even if it is proven that Unix code was stolen and put in Linux.
Of course not! Why would we, they released the code under the GPL then tried to extort money for it!!! This whole thing was a sham to start with, they made their money playing with the stock, they hoped that IBM would buy them out…now the house of cards is falling down.
The rest of the world is built on laws, and credibility
Considering the fact that you know zilch about legal matters, and have zero credibility, that’s a pretty bold statement to make…
In any case, precisely because the world is built on laws and credibility, SCO will lose its sham of a lawsuit.
The important things to remember are:
a) There is no stolen code in Linux
b) Even if there was, SCO has released the code under the GPL
To me, GPL code is very much ‘for cost’ code. That cost is having to release any modifications you make.
Only if you redistribute the software. If the software is for internal use, like the great majority of software out there, then you don’t have to release the source at all.
Of course, it’s your choice: if you want to release something under a license, no one can tell you not to do it. It’s the beauty of choice, something that TopSnake and his cohorts would rather do away with.
I know 90% of you would never pay SCO a dime even if it is proven that Unix code was stolen and put in Linux…
Of course not!
The prosecution rests, your honor.
…of course you wouldn’t reprint the rest of my reply, since it totally demolished your point.
I would not pay SCO a dime because they have release the code under the GPL, and while I might encourage Linux vendors on occasion I would not reward a company that counts extorsion as one of its means of income.
Slam dunk…in your own net, like always.
Poor little troll.
Could people please stop responding to the two idiot children “top speed” and “coral-whatever”, please?
Thanks.
Please read the press release.
Red Hat is not asking for donations to protect their own programmers. They, like IBM and the multitude of other companies who pay employees to write free software, can protect their own people just fine.
Red Hat is putting up money to protect free software programmers who do NOT work for Red Hat, people who may not have access to good lawyers.
When I read this press release, I just knew that Topspeed would find a way to twist it and turn it inside out. Much as he has regarding SCO’s statements. SCO has claimed that they OWN certain code, not that they WROTE that code. The difference is critical.
For example, no credible person has claimed that anyone other than Sequent employees wrote the RCU code. That’s well documented. There was no such code in System V or earlier versions of Unix. Sequent contributed that code to Unix. IBM, Sequent’s successor, holds that IBM owns the code and has granted SCO permission to use that code without royalty. That’s pretty standard practice. SCO holds that the Unix license agreement gives SCO ownership over any contributions to Unix, no matter who wrote it. That seems pretty unlikely to me.
Permission to distribute is very distinct from transfer of ownership. Copyright is about distribution. License agreements modify and extend copyright, not ownership. Sequent and IBM signed license agreements with AT&T, Novell, and SCO, not sales contracts. SCO signed a sales contract with Novell, who signed one with AT&T. SCO bought code from Novell. IBM and SCO licensed code from each other. The first example (selling) transferred ownership. The second example (licensing) grants distribution rights to someone other than the owner. The courts will sort it out.
The whole episode reminds of the story of two neighbors. One of the neighbors has a lawnmower, and the other (a lawyer) didn’t. The second neighbor asked to borrow the lawnmower, and the first neighbor agreed to let him use it, as long as he put some gas in it. Then the owner of the lawnmower loaned it to a third neighbor, and the lawyer sued him. He claimed that he now owned the lawnmower, and that the gasoline represented the sale price. He demanded rent from the third neighbor, and damages for loss of business from the first neighbor. No one likes the lawyer. Except for one or two people who think that helping your neighbors is a Communist plot, os similar nonsense.
>>McNealy compared the Linux community to Napster’s MP3 swashbucklers and referred darkly to the copyright liability dangers of opting for the open-source “lifestyle.”<<
McNealy is parroting McBride here. Should be no surprise to anybody who can see through their little scam.
>>There’s no free lunch here. Sun can’t placate SCO and also respect the intellectual property rights of the Linux kernel developers. If there’s to be a Sun Linux, then it will carry the same phantom taint as Red Hat Linux or SuSE Linux or SCO’s own UnitedLinux offering.<<
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1209873,00.asp
1) The GPL places the responsabilty to make sure the code is free of patent and copyright infrengments on the programmer who contributed the code. Thus, if there is SCO code in Linux, then the program who placed the code there is responsable for all damages.
2) Red Hat’s suite is well written. They are asking the judge to give an immedate injunction against SCO to project RH from further damages. It also requests that SCO prove it case or declare RH and all Linux users legal. RH is also asking for 3x actual damages caused by SCO’s illegal statements.
3) The suite between IBM and SCO is a contractual argument and has nothing to do with RH. The standard AT&T UNIX licenses states that all AT&T code is protected and can not be released to the public by IBM; it also states that any modifications becomes the property of AT&T. However, please note the IBM changed the contract in a side letter: Here, all IBM developed code remains the property of IBM. Please note that the code given to Linux by IBM was 100% IBM code; SCO is ignoring the side letter and is using the orginal contract to claim ownership of IBM’s code.
4) Linux aquired code from FreeBSD. Since this is allowable under the BSD license, this is ok. However, please note that of the 1800 source files for FreeBSD, only 3 were found to be the property of AT&T. How many of the remaining 1797 files were common to both systems. SCO now has the AT&T code; however, a good part of it is also BSD code. Thus, I find it very likely that Linux and SCO UNIX share code. What SCO needs to do is prove that the shared code is only SCO’s and not BSD’s.
< RH claims they want to expedite the process, because they might can get a quicker response to a complaint in Delaware. But if SCO is proven right, they would actually only be hastening their own demise. Quite a risk to take, considering they have not even been willing to view the duplicate code for themselves yet. >
If you think Red Hat doesnt know the code then you are a real fool. Red Hat, Linus and th others know the alleged infringing code. NDA’s do not work, they never have and they never will.
The reason is simple – Red Hat simply doesn’t have enough of a paying user base as it is to be able to do either one without donations.
Actually, it’s rather that Open Source users, far from being the cheapskates that you would paint them, are actually ready to get involved into defending what so many people have created together.
Hey, I’m not even a RedHat customer, and I’m going to shell a hundred dollars (Canadian… 🙂 to that fund.
[SCO holds that the Unix license agreement gives SCO ownership over any contributions to Unix, no matter who wrote it. That seems pretty unlikely to me.]
According to sources like Byte magazine, that is exactly how most ATT contracts were written. Especially with small companies like Sequent.
Yes, that’s how AT&T contracts were written. Here, however, the contract was not with Sequent, but with IBM. And IBM had a side letter to that agreement. Remember, the side letter which you so awkwardly tried to minsinterpret?
A side letter is an addendum to a contract, in this case to the contract between AT&T and IBM. Let’s give that link again, shall we?
http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
Let’s pay particular attention to section 2:
“Regarding Section 2.01, we agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you are owned by you. However, ownership of any portion or portions of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS included in any such modification or derivative work remains with us.”
(Note the “for you”, in this case for IBM by Sequent.)
What this says is clear: any derivative work made by or for IBM belongs to them, but should any code belonging to AT&T be included in such derivative works, ownership of that code (and nothing else than this code) would remain with AT&T. This means that if a derivative work contained no original code from AT&T, then the entirety of that code would belong to IBM.
No matter how much spin you try to put on this, the fact is that the stuff done by Sequent for IBM belongs to IBM.
Gee, no rights on derivative work, no tangible proof of tainted code in the kernel, publishing the alleged code under the GPL on their public web site…you would think that, if SCO really wanted to win this case, they would have thought this through. Unless, of course, the object was just to make a quick buck by selling the inflated stock, like SCO executives have been doing for the past few months.
I gotta give it to you TopSnake, you don’t give up your trolling easily, even when confronted to such overwhelming arguments. It’s too bad this is all for naught, as SCO keeps having less of case the more time passes…
And what kind of a white knight leaves little bitty Red Hat to counter sue SCO?
BTW, RedHat has a bigger market capitalization than SCO. It probably had more cash, too, before MS and Sun pumped money into McBride’s dead horse.
Also, RedHat may suffer economic damage from SCO’s lies and schemes. It’s only natural that they should sue. And, might I add, win.
The ’80 lines’ is just one sample. They have many more than what they are showing under the NDA, including from many besides IBM.
Soooo…how do you know? I mean, have you signed the NDA and looked at the code?
How do you know it’s not code that was licensed free of royalties by IBM to AT&T/SCO?
How do you know if what they showed the analysts is even true?
What proof do you have?
None.
Innocent until proven guilty. That’s the law. ’nuff said!
…the bottom line is Red Hat is taking donations to help clear the Linux name…
Try. Reading. The. Press. Release.
Do you understand the difference between taking donations and making donations? Red Hat is DONATING money to defend free software developers.
Maybe the fund will accept outside contributions, maybe it won’t. The press release, contrary to your assertion, did NOT say that they would be accepting donations. The one thing that it DID say is that Red Hat is MAKING a donation to cover legal expenses of people and companies developing software under the GPL license.
Not just Linux. GPL software. That’s a key point.
SCO is attacking Linux, not all GPL software. The most prominent company to target the GPL is Microsoft. Other companies may dismiss the GPL as a bad choice for themselves, but only Microsoft has devoted significant effort to attacking the GPL as a license even when used by other people.
Microsoft has used its size and monopoly position to steamroller commercial competition. They can’t do that with free software. There’s no company to buy, no company to crush, no revenue stream to strangle. The whole point to free software is that it is controlled by the users, and can outlive any one company. So, as the Halloween documents revealed, Microsoft is hoping to mount a legal attack against free software developers.
The people developing free software don’t make money by selling it (where Microsoft can crush them), they make money by using it. In other words, Microsoft can cut off external revenue for software development, but they can’t touch internally funded development. Microsoft can crush sellers of web server software, but not users of web server software. That’s why the web server users got together and wrote their own, which is trouncing Microsoft’s product.
Microsoft can’t cut off those internal funds paying for the developers. So they are switching to Plan B. If you can’t cut off the income, run up the expenses. So we now see the next phase, where Microsoft attempts to drown free software developers in legal expenses.
Red Hat is run by some pretty sharp people. They know that they can beat SCO. SCO is cannon fodder, sacrificed so that Microsoft can see where defender’s guns are. This Open Source Now Fund is a sign that Red Hat is preparing for the real assault, the one where Microsoft waves more money at lawyers than than they’ve seen in their wildest dreams.
As a supporter of free software, I see this as a good sign. It shows how desperate Microsoft has become. They’re admitting that they can’t compete with free software, so they’ll sue it into the ground instead.
It won’t work. Microsoft looks strong now, unless you look closely. Napoleon looked strong, too, on the way to Moscow.
I predict that Microsoft will unleash a flurry of lawsuits, and inspire a huge backlash. Five years from now, Microsoft will look like Napoleon’s army on the way back from Moscow.
Fans of history will note that Napoleon left his freezing, starving troops to his Generals, and traveled back to Paris in comfort. Will Bill Gates offer you a ride, or will your business be left behind?
…as if you didn’t really believe in what you say.
RedHat has a case: SCO’s FUD is causing them financial harm. I’d say they have a very good case – either SCO will be forced to finally show the alleged code (if it exists) or they’ll have to shut up and follow through in a court of law instead of continuing their ridiculous theatrics in the trade papers and web sites.
This is an important development. They’ve pledged a million – let’s see how else tips the jar.
I know I am, a hundred bucks – and it ain’t from my mother’s purse, either. I’ll just wait another two weeks buying a GameCube… 🙂
Great Clueless – Sequent had contracts too
With IBM, yes.
… ownership of any portion or portions of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS included in any such modification or derivative work remains with us…
“modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you are owned by you.”
You’re like someone in an elevator who’s farted, and who’s then trying to convince the only other person in there that they farted.
If you can’t make out what that paragraph means, i.e. that the derivative works belongs to IBM save with the sole exception of any actual AT&T code, then that’s your problem. You can keep repeating it in its entirety (you know, like they’ll actually do in a court of law, where they can’t only take snippets that appear to support their case). That paragraph proves that I’m right, and that you’re wrong.
Go get a chat room with your paranoid, delusional friend and talk about this amongst yourselves, will you? Let the nice, reasonable people have grown-up discussions. Please.
Your fine words are wasted on this troll and his doppleganger, Coral Snake.
Very nicely said, though.
I don’t really care if M$ loses market share, I just don’t want it to be open source. I’m perfectly happy to see Unix or ideally Apple continue to hold their markets as appose to lose them to freeware, which will never be maintained as well.
You can believe Red Hat’s spin, and compare M$ to Napoleon beeing beaten in Russia, and I will just laugh because I’ve seen it all before. I’m no fan of M$ but they have eaten guys like you every day for breakfast. They bent IBM over in the ultimate humiliation in computer history. Novell is your new hero? HA! And now when I think of ‘red hat’, I will simply think of a begar on the street corner, red hat held out, upside down.
Why don’t you get the executives of LINUX DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES (Red Hat, Lycoris and Lindows in America) to sign the NDA and look at the evedence. Since they are EXECUTIVES and not PROGRAMMERS their ability to continue to work with Linux would not be hindered by the NDA. Are you afriad that they might actually cut a deal if McBride’s charges are true and PAY for the stolen code?????!!!!!
…MS has never eaten anything like Linux. It is not a company that can be bought, it is a process, a movement.
Why do you think MS has Linux as #2 on its threat list, right after the “slumping economy”?
Let Open Source compete fairly on the open market. After all, if closed source is so superior, then it should need no unfair advantages, no underhanded tricks, no frivolous lawsuits, right?
MS is afraid of Linux, and rightly so. RedHat is only the tip of the iceberg.
Who cares if it is true or not? SCO made that question irrelevant when they distributed the code under the GPL themselves on their public FTP site, and continue to do so. You even agreed with this…
The Linux community will fight SCO on its own terms. And it will win.
//I don’t really care if M$ loses market share, I just don’t want it to be open source. I’m perfectly happy to see Unix or ideally Apple continue to hold their markets as appose to lose them to freeware, which will never be maintained as well.
//
You realize much (most) of Apples software is OPEN SOURCE.
The Kernel
The Browser
The network technology
The Printing System
And more.
According to you, Jobs is a communist too.
You guys are really fun. Clueless, but fun. (you know who I mean.)
Anyway, the other day I had this sort of idea… I was thinking about SCO being convinient for Microsoft and about SCO shift of focus on their claims. IMHO, leaving aside for a moment SCO’s continuous changes in their claims, there’s a global shift in their complaints. As if… maybe… they were now going after the GPL itself.
I mean, they’re still offering Linux for download on their site. Yes, it could be purely accidental. Or it could be intentional if their ultimate goal was not only claiming rights to Linux, but also trying the GPL in court (and from their point of view I imagine declaring it null).
I think Red Hat and the rest should only bring that matter to attention if they have a really good defense for the GPL. (I do think the GPL’s valid, but, you know, a court might think otherwise.)
I am amazed by the sexy word you have dug up… I had to check immeadetly if this is actually being listed in English dictionaries — and it is:
“Doppelgänger”
I love to use German bits in English…
Normally – I would not even lower myself to this level – but let’s put some things to rest, debunk Mr. Topspeed at the same time …… 😉
Sequent was one of the most advanced software and hardware Unix mini platform developers of the late ’80s up to their purchase by IBM – contrary to statements that Sequent was ‘small’. In 1995 – Sequent released the NUMA-Q – which scaled to a paltry 250+ Intel CPUs. There exists few architectures that can scale to that level _today_ without serious interconnect glue. (No! We’re not talking Beowulf or Myrinet type interconnects here.) The NUMA-Q and it’s revolutionary IQ-Link were available if you had a cheque and the room on your computer floor.
See:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Sequent+Dynix+NUMA+q&hl=en&lr=&ie…
The NUMA-Q (and the Symmetry systems before it) were extremely compotent compute platforms – used quite extensively in such environments as Wall Street, Hollywood, Oil&Gas seismic work, research laboratories and pretty much anything else that had a problem domain that required significant horsepower.
Mr. Topspeed’s demonstrated lack of knowledge about the history of breakthrough advancements in Computer Science, Operating System Design, Electrical Enginnering and Computer Hardware Engineering made at Sequent should be glaringly obvious to even to most ardent troll. Just for clarity – a full-blown NUMA-Q was probably the fastest WinNT device ever built <PERIOD>.
Contrary to Topspeed’s claims w.r.t. SMP, RCU and NUMA (in general) and Intellectual Property (in particular), how can this person have knowledge of the resources, processes, development agreements and contractual obligations that existed between Sequent, ATT, Santa Cruz Operation (the real one), Corollary, Pyramid, Compaq and a host of other companies that invested significant resources to bring SMP to Intel processors back in the late ’80s / early ’90s?
Duh!
For your information Topspeed – the original Dynix from Sequent was based on BSD 4.2 not SysVR3.2 or SysVR4. The original Dynix had some Sequent-developed SysV3.2-style extensions on top of the highly modified BSD kernel. The BSD kernel from Sequent had SMP long before SysV even entered into the Sequent labs or Sequent product lines.
Dynix/ptx was/is Sequent’s enhanced SysVR4 SMP-enabled UNIX implementation. Sequent developed SMP for ATT’s SysVR4 on Intel processors (1990 or so), which if I remember got cross-licensed back to the original Santa Cruz Operation for inclusion in their product, _NOT_ the other way around. However – Pyramid, Corollary and Tricord (and the others mentioned above) were all invloved at one point or another during this timeframe.
A lot of work on ccNUMA was originally done in the labs at SGI – contrary to the rants I’ve read on the subject. The first ccNUMA work was done on the MIPS processor architecture. The first NUMA implementation for Intel was indeed done by Sequent. However – this still does not tell the whole story about distributed shared memory (DSM) models. Here is a _small_ bibliography on the subject:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=SGI+NUMA+history&start=10&hl=en&l…
Now – most of this all happened before ATT bowed out of the Unix business, long before IBM came along and purchased Sequent, Novell/USL entered and left the Unix business, the Santa Cruz Operation became Trantella, and Caldera (a Linux company) morphed into “The SCO Group” – a name I am sure
was picked to obfuscate the _real_ Intellectual Property issues involved.
Topspeed throws around words like “stolen”, “thief” while claiming to have ‘legal’ expertise and some form of in-sider knowledge. Topspeed uses examples from “Byte” magazine to back up his viewpoint(s). That alone should be indicative of the level of understanding of the issues that this person has.
’nuff said.
Is it just me or does anyone else picture Coral Snake as a full fledged, militant, extreme right wing radical. I picture a small shack in Michigan, in the middle of the woods, with Coral Snake sitting there at his computer, dressed in full military fatigues. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that he belongs to a militia, well, at least the NRA. He should go gack to FOX NEWS because he’s too brain dead to interact with the real world.
If the problem was about source code, than the complaint would have been public and the kernel developers would have removed the offending code. Instead what we have here is an organization that has participated in criminal activity.
Top speed, I can respect your thought that SCO could be right about this. In fact they very well could be, there also is an equal chance that Linux is in the right.
But really, your insulting comments have to stop, they are petty, trite and really just detract from whatever point you were trying to make. If you aren’t going to be respectful, then we can tell that you aren’t trying to make a point and are just out to insult people. Trying to portray all Linux users as criminals is completely wrong also, sure there are unsavory members just like any community. The community does not encourage IP theft or piracy in the least. All we ask is that you can acknowlege this at least.
Good day, topspeed.
Please ban the freaking trolls!
I seem SCO start to visualised the reality of their dream of making a lot of money, at least from the share market being destroyed. Let wait an see, if others join Redhat, I’m sure the SCO share price will drop much further.
I think that the CEO’s of the SCO should be tried in a criminal investigation and possibly sent to prison.