On March 7th 2003, the SCO Group filed a lawsuit against IBM for misappropriation of tradesecrets and contractual agreements. The scope of SCOs complaint is that IBM introduced parts of Unix System V and Project Monterey into the Linux kernel. Project Monterey was a effort to port IBM’s AIX 5L onto the Intel Itanium platform, IBM withdrew from that project for reasons unknown according to the press, I believe that it was because the Itanium is a bomb.
Editorial Notice: All opinions are those of the author and not necessarily those of osnews.com
In April 2003, SCO released information saying that code from Unix System V was indeed present in the Linux OS. What followed was a lot of allegations that had no merit and counter allegations. In other words, the kind of activity that the press loves. Does SCO’s complaints have merit ? Im no lawyer, and after letting my attorney look at the NDA that SCO sent me, I refuse to sign it. The NDA basically states if asked the signer can only say ” Yes there is common code ” or ” no there is not any common code “. And any signer, if called into court can give no opinion but can only state those words, ” Yes ” or ” No “. We will be discussing these things further along in this paper. But, in no way is my opinion a substitute for professional legal advice and if you feel threatened by SCO’s actions, get the advice from appropriate legal counsel.
SCO’s Actions
SCO’s actions are kind of mixed to me. SCO was a distributor of Linux and for many was considered a reliable and grade A company to work with. SCO, in my opinion, is trying to bolster its UnixWare and OpenServer sales. UnixWare and OpenServer are their products that they market that run on Intel hardware. Linux is their only real competition in that marketspace and what better way to get ahead than to damage your competition. SCO’s avenue of attack is FUD, Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. SCO sent 1500 letters out to Fortune 1000 companies that use Linux mainstream. Those letters basically said that they believe linux to be a rip off of UNIX and that if SCO wins be prepared to pay royalties. SCO finally in June of 2003 released some of the examples of infringing code to some analysts and other so called ” Experts “. I find it weird that SCO also released very little code. I think the code that they did reveal was code that had the strongest case of patent infringement. Here is an excerpt of some of the analysts statements:
“If everything SCO showed me today is true, then the Linux community should be very concerned,” said Bill Claybrook, research director for Linux and open-source software at the Aberdeen Group (Boston).
Thats all fine and dandy but I find it premature for an analyst to actually make a statement like that without doing a lot more research into the SCO’s claims, there are to many holes in this case and in their allegations. By the way, the full article can be found here
Another analyst said this:
“One could argue that developers could write exact or very similar code, but the developers’ comments in the code are basically your DNA, or fingerprints, for a particular piece of source code,” said Laura DiDio, a senior analyst with the Yankee Group (Boston), who viewed the evidence.
Also another good argument but also premature. Who was the developer? Was he/she a SCO or Novell or even a AT&T employee? or, was he/she a Linux developer? too many unanswered questions, also under what conditions did they show the code. I wouldn’t say a developers comments in the code are fingerprints or DNA, because Developers comments can be altered where DNA cannot. Under SCO’s conditions they can show what they want to show, and they can even manufacture their own evidence if they so wish.
DiDio and Claybrook said they were given side-by-side copies of Unix and Linux code to compare. Neither was paid for the work, and both agreed that the evidence suggests SCO has a strong case in its $1 billion suit against IBM Corp. and in its scrap with the Linux community.
Was the Linux code that they were shown downloaded directly from Kernel.org under the witness of the analysts or was it given to them directly from SCO’s labs. Either way, these people are taking SCO’s side of the story without doing any kind of strong research. They do not know any of the developers of Linux or of Unix, they were not able to talk to any of the developers of the infringing code. Something SCO will have to allow the courts to do if it decides to pursue this any further in a courtroom.
Furthermore, I have used UnixWare and UnixWare, to put in laymens terms, stinks. Until version 7.1.3 UnixWare had no support of any kind for USB, Xeon processors or any support for any kind of modern device. UnixWare had much more to gain from Linux than Linux had to gain from UnixWare. I bet thats something SCO forgot to tell the analysts and other “experts” that have observed the code thus far. Another thing I found interesting from SCO’s more recent action and what the analysts said is this:
But analysts categorically disagreed with that viewpoint last week. “SCO is not trying to destroy Linux,” said DiDio of the Yankee Group. “That’s silly. This is about paying royalties.”
Thats strikes an interesting question, Why should we have to pay royalties on LVM and SMP ? Shocked that I figured out what code SCO was complaining about without looking at code. You are thinking, ” This guy is crazy ” or ” He is fishing” But if you think about it the height of SCO’s complaint is that Linux surpassed UnixWare in the Enterprise Sector. For an OS to survive in the Enterprise sector what does the OS need:
Strong SMP support — How well it handles multiple processors
Strong LVM support — How well it handles Logical Volumes
Support for devices users are realistically expected to use — USB, Firewire, Audio, Video, Application Support
Cost
SMP and LVM was present in UnixWare before Linux had it, Although UnixWare did not handle SMP very well at all, LVM was okay but it is nothing like what Linux had before. That is all UnixWare had. Device support, as stated before, was superior in Linux long before it was even present in UnixWare and device support in Linux is better than what UnixWare ever had. Cost is an issue and Linux will always be cheaper than Unix, and retraining IT personnel from a Unix based system to Linux based systems is nil and takes very little time. Application support is a non-issue as well, it is much easier to port a custom Application from Unix to Linux than it would be to port a custom Application from Microsoft Windows to Linux. So in the end, LVM and SMP are the only two things that Unix had over Linux.
SCO’s chances in court
Im no attorney, so I do not know what exactly whats going to happen, nor can I offer any legal strategies to IBM or to SCO but I do not think SCO has much of a chance. In order for SCO to prevail, in my opinion, is that SCO will have to provide testimony from ex-employees and many developers and the history of Unix development is so muddled with failure and disorganization that it will be hard for SCO to prove its case. SCO says that it is on Linux developers to prove that they wrote the code, it is the other way around, SCO has to prove that the Linux community did actually steal it. I do not care if you show a million lines of code, without the testimony of the original developers, you are royally SOL. Ransom Love will have to testify as will all of his original team, and I think that it will be found that alot of Unix code was put into Linux by Love and his crew. In my opinion, SCO better make a reasonable settlement or pray for a buyout. If they go to court I give SCO a 20 % chance, and I give them that because we do not know how versed the judge or the jury will be in software development.
If SCO Wins
Mighty big IF. If SCO was to win, the offending code will be revealed and it will be removed and replaced. Linux and Open Source Software is too pervasive for any real damage to be done to it. Will we Professional Linux users be required to pay royalties ? It is a possibility but I doubt it. Patches will be released and some of the distributors may take a little bit of a hit because they will probably have to offer new versions of their distributions and make them available at no cost to current customers.
Conclusion
SCO will have to find a better way to reveal their “stolen” code. The way it is being done now is to flawed and raises questions of reliability. Should you switch Operating Systems or slow down Linux deployments? Once again consult your attorney because all situations are different. One of the things that has come of this case is the need for Copyright and Patent protection from the Linux community. It is an issue that will have to be addressed and Linus should form a team that Copyrights and Patents are their sole responsibility. Also, developers document everything you do and submit. I know doing documentation stinks, heck I hate doing changelogs myself but it needs to be done. Make it hard for SCO or any other company to come up and say that you are infringing their patents or copyrights. In any case, the whole SCO situation to me is both amusing and sad, amusing because what they are saying and the way they are acting is almost unbelievable. Sad because SCO thinks FUD is the only way they can be competitive.
All companies mentioned here are the registered trademarks of their respective owners. Linux is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds and UNIX is the registered trademark of the Open Group.
…for a non-lawyer. This seems to be a fair, reasonable account of the SCO situation.
Here’s how it breaks down, IMHO:
Could SCO be right? Maybe. Probably just a pile of BS FUD.
Would it matter to users if they were? Nope.
Would it matter to distributors if they were? For a month or two, yes. After the alleged code is removed and replaced, nope.
Does SCO pose a threat to OSS? Not a chance. Worst Case Scenario, Goddess forbid, The tainted code is critical to the Linux kernel’s function, and people start making GNU/FreeBSD distros with nearly the same hardware support, and no appreciable difference in the interface. Open-Source will endure this fiasco, and be the better for it.
Note that this is all my personal opinion, and should be taken as such.
and the arguments you made make a lot of sense. As long as developers say yes I wrote that (the code you mentioned), things can get narrowed.
I have said before, and so have others, SCO must have put the code there themselves, either knowingly or just unaware that they did this.
Does the code that goes into Linux have at least the authors name on it, and the date. I think it does, so the court case will be very interesting, I wish I was a Juror
Also what has happened to posters here at OSNEWS, totally unrelated posts, see Moderated Down for a good example of this
I actually found it rather biased, and not very informative.
SCO spokesman: Linux has stolen code, but we won’t show you.
Linux analyst: quit spreading FUD. show us the code.
SCO spokesman: we don’t want to destroy Linux, just to make money on suing everyone. we’ll show the code in time.
Linux analyst: Openserver and Unixware suck. you have a 20% chance in court, even though I have no actual basis for my opinion.
blah blah blah.. am I the only one sick of seeing this?
any questionable code can be replaced easily enough, but there still could be repercussions for anyone that distributed the code without SCO’s consent. if so, then I’m sure they’ll be dealt with. in the meantime, I wish both sides would just quiet down until there’s really something to argue about.
http://opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
Opinder Bawa, Senior Vice President, Engineering and Global Services at The SCO Group, sold all his stock last week.
http://newsvac.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/06/09/139257
Also What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + GPL
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=66874&cid=6142744
I think that was about the best article I have ever read on this site. Great job. Thank you.
IF SCO was honest, SCO could just provide the specific line numbers, in the specific Linux kernel. SCO absolutely refuses to do anything of the sort. This NDA deal is the most blatant “stacked deck” PR stunt I have ever seen. Unbelievable that anybody could be stupid enough to fall for it.
SCOX is a small and desperate company, they do not have a viable business plan, or a competitive product. SCO has been losing money and market share for years. Their Linux bashing is laughable.
The only chance SCOX has to survive is to keep winning lawsuits.
“..but there still could be repercussions for anyone that distributed the code without SCO’s consent.”
SCO included. They continued to distribute the offending code after they sued IBM, so surely they’re as liable as the rest. Their excuse that “we didn’t know” is a joke. The source code is/has been there for the world to see since the beginning and it is up to each distributor to know exactly what it is they’re selling and promoting.
Could you imagine any another company, Ford for example, saying “Yeah… the part is flawed, but we didn’t know it was even in there”. Gimme a break.
SCO’s product, SCO’s responsibility….now released under the GPL.
I fear we’re now entering an era where innovation is getting strangled by big business. There are so many ‘software patents’ that are so vague that it makes writing software next to impossible in the future without having to pay someone, somewhere a royalty. This is only the beginning I’m afraid…
Good to see a nice, and well balanced article on the subject…
Assuming SCO wins the case, I don’t think the end user is going to have many problems (other than having to update the kernel and some tools, to avoid licence fees), however it’s the big linux distro’s (Redhat, Suse, etc) and linux backers (IBM, SUN, etc) that are going to hurt (being the distributors of the product)…
If SCO lose, nothing happens, and SCO just become the laughing stock of both the IT and Business World.
Chewy509…
I can see SCO’s point in not wanting the lines to be released. If they were to just publish them to everyone, the first thing to happen would be for them to be removed from the kernel. Then SCO would have to produce a back-copy of the kernel for use in court, and everyone would accuse them of using a rigged copy. No, they certainly have reasons for what they’re doing.
It’s always legal for a company to distribute what it has the rights to. E.g. Microsoft doesn’t have to pay itself licensing fees to use Access databases in its own products.
Suppose SCO loses. Suppose the reason is that they already had released the code in question under the GPL. Suppose Microsoft shows up and says ‘see, we TOLD you the GPL was viral! It destroys all IP it touches.’
Suppose all of this is orchestrated by Microsoft from the beginning to lend credence to their allegations??
Maybe they tried to change their business principal from software company into stock/share business. Or maybe into legal firm?
He.. He… He…
Of course, but Microsoft doesn’t state that the contents of their products are subject to the GPL. The kernel is clearly a GPL’d piece of software and SCO was distributing it along with everyone else under this license. They now say there’s code in there that shouldn’t be. Sorry, but tough luck. They distributed the so-called ‘tainted code’ with full knowledge…under the GPL.
…but, how do we know that SCO didn’t take Linux code and put it into their UNIX, so that they could come back later and claim theft of intellectual property?
It is an impossible task for the linux or bsd kernel maintainers to check the origin of the code that is submitted to them, after all, Solaris, Windows or AIX source code isn’t available to the public. The same can be said of Oracle or Norton Antivirus for instance.
Do people really expect proprietary software makers to give Linus a copy of their sources so that he can make sure his product doesn’t infringe on anybody’s intellectual property or copyright ?
I just hope reporters will stop asking from Open Source programs what they never asked from their proprietary counterparts.
The most obvious solution would be to subpoena old Novell copies of the code to determine when the code in question came into UnixWare.
Shouldn’t IBM have seen the alleged code by now _without_ having to sign any NDA. They know they have to support of the OSS comunity. Why don’t they leverage it. Is it at all possible that they have not seen the, so called, evidence.
Assume that there actually are common and unobfuscated lines is UnixWare and Linux, wouldn’t somebody with access to UnixWare source be able to identify them and point out the file in the Linux source code. Perhaps that would not violate this individials NDA. I would guess some NDA exists for anybody having access to SCOs Unix sources but perhaps not one that prevents that person (or company) to blow the whistle about a possible license violation and point out the file/lines in question.
An finally a “what if”. What would SCOs actions be if they found GPL:ed code in UnixWare and realised that they already have distributed it. Then, they essentially have two options. Closing down because their only real source of income has now become GPL, or, start a big scam trying to extort money from some big corporations before (eventually) closing down. If this is actually the case, it’s rather understandable why they can’t show the offending piece of code to the public. It would take to open source comunity not more that a few hours to expose such a scam. At the same time, publicity is very important since this case can absolutely not go to court.
Just a though.
/jarek
No, they certainly have reasons for what they’re doing.
I agree with you (that they have a reason), but I think their reasons are different. I think it is all about their stock price (which is around $9.00 right now – a large improvement over the $.85 they used to be), and about being bought out by a large company. It’s all about money.
I firmly believe that if they released the “offending” lines of code that their case would be invalidated. The OSS folks would audit their change logs, find who really wrote the code, and SCO would be SOL.
IBM,
The best way to end this thing is to buyout SCO. One done fire the CEO and the management staff.
“It is an impossible task for the linux or bsd kernel maintainers to check the origin of the code that is submitted to them, after all, Solaris, Windows or AIX source code isn’t available to the public.”
I always marvelled at that concept as well. Ok, you can have your copyright (patent, or whatever), but how can it mean anything if we don’t even know what the code is? It’s not like a book that’s clearly written, and you CAN’T COPY IT. Software is different. You can’t read it, so you can’t tell where it comes from. MS, SUN, IBM and every company runs into the same problem. What if any employee put some GPL code into their software? What if they put another companies IP code in there? Who would ever know? The nature of Open Source requires honesty. That doesn’t mean IP companies are dishonest, just that they COULD be, while open source CANNOT be. Interesting how general concept of copyrights should be consistent with all other written forms of writing EXCEPT software. That’s just the philosopher in me – always questions, no answers.
SCO included. They continued to distribute the offending code after they sued IBM, so surely they’re as liable as the rest.
of course, liability in this case might not mean much. they wouldn’t lose a lot taking themselves to court. you also have to remember the IBM suit wasn’t about stolen code, it was about trade secrets. so, it’s more or less irrelevant when the IBM suit started.
Could you imagine any another company, Ford for example, saying “Yeah… the part is flawed, but we didn’t know it was even in there”. Gimme a break.
but, this is exactly what everyone else is going to claim. until someone actually sits down and does an audit of the code, no one really knows. Ford also deals with something they designed… SCO/Caldera didn’t design either, and I doubt anyone on staff has dealt line by line with either.
if they added the code, then it should be GPLed. if someone else did and they didn’t notice, then I wouldn’t blame them.
I find it weird that SCO also released very little code. I think the code that they did reveal was code that had the strongest case of patent infringement.
So, you feel it would make more sense for them to show the code that has 0% of backing up their claims? Whatever.
…UnixWare had no support of any kind for USB, Xeon processors or any support for any kind of modern device.
Do you really think this is about USB drivers? Honestly?
…SCO will have to find a better way to reveal their “stolen” code. The way it is being done now is to flawed and raises questions of reliability.
Legally, SCO has no requirement to show any code to the public. The only times a litigant has to show evidence to back up their claims is during the pre-trial discovery phase (and only to the defending party if requested) and the trial itself. They don’t have to show their information to anyone but IBM since they are the defendants in the suit.
…the offending code will be revealed and it will be removed and replaced. Linux and Open Source Software is too pervasive for any real damage to be done to it.
You’re so wrong here it’s not even funny. So, you believe that if SCO wins they will play all nice-nice and just forgive all of the commerical Linux distributors and companies that have had Linux deployed for the months/years that they have been illegally using patented code? If so, then why would they even bother with the suit. It’s all about money and SCO wants what they feel they are due.
A $1B judgement against IBM would certainly be felt by IBM. Not only financially, but possibly in their desire to continue working on/using Linux. SCO would also have the legal ammo to go after SUSE, RedHat, etc… and all of the companies using Linux. SCO would want their pound of flesh for patent infringements and would have legal precident to get it. The Linux community would most definately suffer if SCO wins. Just because the offending code could be replaced it doesn’t mean that SCO won’t bother going after monetary damages for the time that the offending code was used.
About the only thing in the article that was reasonable was the sentence, “…I’m no lawyer….”
I wonder if IBM regularly conducts, or has ever conducted, IP audits of Linux, comparing it with UnixWare and other proprietary code bases they have access to. There are supposedly tools that can find similar or identical sections. I would think they at least would have used this kind of tool after SCO sued them. Maybe IBM did find the 80+ similar lines of code and decided that they weren’t the culpable party, or that it wasn’t infringing at all (because both lines originated with BSD, etc).
Netscape claimed to have used a source verification tool to ensure that none of their code came from Mosaic, when they were being sued by UIUC.
Serious question:
The NDA basically states if asked the signer can only say ” Yes there is common code ” or ” no there is not any common code”
Followed by:
“If everything SCO showed me today is true, then the Linux community should be very concerned,” said Bill Claybrook, research director for Linux and open-source software at the Aberdeen Group (Boston).”
Does this mean that Claybrook is in breach of the NDA, or was the analogy just an over-simplification?
Now, there is a very important point raised in the article; AFAIK (at least, it is this way in Oz), the Burden of Proof rests solely on the Plaintiff! SCO can say whatever they like, but if they cannot prove it, then there is no argument!
If they do offer proof, and that proof shows that it was copied without their consent (ie, not by one of their own developers) then that is when the defendant must respond to the claims. Of course, if it wasn’t IBM, then they kind of kills the argument…
<shrug> Who knows – IBM has big pockets, I guess, so they must be the best ones to sue. I’d be feeling afraid if I was the developer who added the unauthorised code, however, as realistically, the only real legal action will be against them (or their employer). A billion dollars? Yikes!
Oh God no! If SCO is bought out, the rat bastards behind this shakedown (whether they’re telling the truth or not, it’s a shakedown) will get rich, because they own stock.
Small companies about to die will learn “the SCO tactic” and starting suing because they’ll bank on getting purchased. They’ll rig their own stock.
No, a buyout is NOT an option. Only them riding this out and hoping for settlement or winning can be a positive for them. Eventually, they’ll either run out of money or get slapped with every injuction IBM’s suits can muster.
PLEASE IBM, do NOT buy SCO. The last thing I’d want to see is Darl McBride making even one penny off this bullshit fiasco. I hope he loses every ounce of credibility and value and becomes an old punchline in the tech world.
Author writes…
…UnixWare had no support of any kind for USB, Xeon processors or any support for any kind of modern device.
Anonymous writes…
Do you really think this is about USB drivers? Honestly?
The author clearly stated that it is more than USB. Did he not say SMP, LVM, etc.
Notice the “…” before the Unixware.
{ So, you feel it would make more sense for them to show the code that has 0% of backing up their claims? Whatever. }
SCO says it has hundred of Lines of code that Linux incorporates illegally.
80 Lines is nothing. It is foreplay in the modern day of software development. I can tell you dont write code. By only showing a few lines of code it shows me SCO has something to hide.
{ Do you really think this is about USB drivers? Honestly? }
Device support plays a large role in any kind of adoption, their claims state that Linux surpassed them in the Enterprise. Let me ask you. If you are planning a deployment of Linux and you have hundreds of USB devices and FireWire devices are you as a company going to buy any kind of system software that does not support your devices, and another case in point I have 16 servers at work that are Xeon based, Why would I bother to purchase system software that doesnt even support my processors. So yes device support plays a large role. I was showing where UnixWare was lacking and pointing out many reasons why UnixWare then and to this day remains a total flop.
{ You’re so wrong here it’s not even funny. So, you believe that if SCO wins they will play all nice-nice and just forgive all of the commerical Linux distributors and companies that have had Linux deployed for the months/years that they have been illegally using patented code? If so, then why would they even bother with the suit. It’s all about money and SCO wants what they feel they are due. }
We are both being hypothetical here because if SCO had as strong a case here as they say. IBM would have already settled a long time ago. But, who cares if they play nice or not.
{ A $1B judgement against IBM would certainly be felt by IBM. Not only financially, but possibly in their desire to continue working on/using Linux. SCO would also have the legal ammo to go after SUSE, RedHat, etc… and all of the companies using Linux. SCO would want their pound of flesh for patent infringements and would have legal precident to get it. The Linux community would most definately suffer if SCO wins. Just because the offending code could be replaced it doesn’t mean that SCO won’t bother going after monetary damages for the time that the offending code was used. }
What planet are you living on ? a billion dollars is a spit in a bucket for IBM, they have 4 billion in petty cash. Also SCO would not have any legal Ammo to go after anyone, because in the end of the IBM trial the only thing they would have is a victory over contractual violations. When and if they ever make patent infringment claims is when the real, ” is itSCO’s or not ” will fall into play. The linux community is gathering their ammo for those trials if it ever comes to pass. Which I doubt, I see either a settlement where IBM pays SCO petty cash to make them go away and any past infingements will be forgiven. And if that doesnt work, I see either IBM buying them out or the Linux distributors forming a consortium to shut them down. I do not see where Open Source or the Linux community would suffer.
Personally I hope they lose.
Not because of any reasons to do with copyright or the nebulous notion of “freedom”, but pure and simply because putting programmers out of jobs is immoral. It serves no purpose to society but to sate the unwholesome appetites of certain elements of the unemployed male population who, for whatever reason, cannot find themselves employment.
Open Source Software is degrading to all programmers. It encourages the myth that any layperson can program, and its whole purpose is to encourage anti-capitalism and promote socialism, something which God-fearing Christians know to be wrong. A true programmer has no need to release his source code for peer review, he is confident in his abliity.
Programmers are exploited with the promise of bountiful Paypal money and the supposed “liberating” experiance of having their source code available for anyone to see. These are lies from an industry filled with perverts of the highest order, people for whom Linux is a way of life.
It is a symptom of the moral decay of modern society that the Open Source business has become so huge. The OSS” industry, which takes degradation to new extremes, makes over twice as much money as all of Silicon Valley does each year. America has turned away from its decent, Microsoft roots and has become the home of perversion, the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah, and God has become “just another idea” to people who have become lost to His love.
No, the day when the whole “industry” gets struck down by lightning cannot come to soon, but in the meantime I hope IBM loses this case.
i am so going to laugh if all you linux zealots are WRONG and ibm does lose the case and SCO is correct. sorry to say, but why are you all dead on positive that they are not in the right?
about the comment, IF SCO wins, they will change the code, that is stolen, it was still stolen in the first place and people are still going to pay royalties.
The theft of archaic Unix code has NOTHING to do with the current case. AFAIK, SCO is suing IBM because they claim they violated trade secrets to help Linux. It has nothing to do with the code… At worst, they must prove that IBM used the UnixWare code illegaly (by reading the code and recoding it in a different way) to help the development of Linux.
IMO, they must prove that IBM employees added the code in the kernel if they want to use that proof. It’s not their fault if a SCO employee or some l33t Unix guru ripped code from UnixWare to put it in Linux. They must prove that IBM is guilty. If they claim that the Linux movement steal their code, they must go against who’s in charge of the code (Linus), not IBM.
julan, you can read many articles on the Net on why they’re probably wrong. You’re right for your second point, and I’m surprised that nobody noticed that before. A rewrite wouldn’t be enough.
You’d pay royalties if you are still using it but if said code is removed….Well then the only thing anyone would have to pay would be for damages inquired to SCO’s violation of it’s IP and thats it. If SCO is right ( and this is a BIG IF !! ) what have they gained in the end ? Nothing but a few more months if not a year or two before they burn off whatever amount of cash they recieve in any court case. They have all but lost the hearts and minds of Unix and Linux admins across the globe and in IMHO. SCO’s only hope is being bought out by IBM and I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
Good point ! Ignorance is not an excuse under the law. If what they say is true in terms some of their code be in the Linux kernel then they pretty much had given it up to the GPL gods.
“America has turned away from its decent, Microsoft roots and has become the home of perversion”
Seriously dude…you can’t be serious. ROTFLMAO at how brainwashed some people are
IBM, for all its faults, has made one thing very clear during the development of Linux for its computers – it can’t afford to get caught up in this sort of thing, so they have made it very clear that AIX will remain a separate project from Linux. whether it be Linux/390, Linux/POWER4, or whatever. Just ask any one of IBM’s own Linux-hackers.
In this I trust IBM’s sense of self-preservation.
SCO has made several comments on combining Unix with Linux
http://www.linux-mag.com/2000-11/love_01.html
– that seemed to go by the board with a corporate shakeout when Ransom Love left.
“LM: What parts of UnixWare do you plan to open source?
“Love: Let me back up first. We will provide open access to the UnixWare source under an open source license. Our commitment was, when we made the announcement — for every product that we own and every component that we own — that we will provide open access to the source.”
So where the source came from – if it’s not Linux added to Unixware, that is – it could just have easily have come during that period when Caldera was open to combining the two source trees.
And if that is so, it was deliberately released under GPL during that time, and so SCO has no call to recall that code. The stable door is open, the horse is gone, and firing the stable won’t do anything useful.
I can see SCO’s point in not wanting the lines to be released…
This is ridiculous. Get a notar and someone from kernel.org.
Don’t just backup a snapshot, but the whole CVS history.
Have the notar sign it, and put the stuff in a safe.
There’s no technical reason for not showing the code.
The best course of action for IBM is to buy SCO and all their UNIX licenses and copyrights. Afterall, IBM has deep pockets. IBM should then make all the UNIX source code publicly available under http://www.kernel.org. This move will render IBM’s relations with the open source community unbreakable. Enterprises around the world will then need to change their business models accordingly. IBM is now in the position to be The One that save humanity from the disease called “closed source.” Has our saviour finally arrived?
The SCO and IBM are American companies so I’m not too worried as a non American. It seems that a large number of American corporations are corrupt, and it looks like the owners and operators live a low standard dog eat dog lifestyle. I’m just really glad that I am far away from it all.
What I will want to see from open source isn’t soo much Linux, however for now, Linux is great to learn about. I have copies of various Linux releases, so I can study the source code regardless of whatever happens in the external environment. I want to live in a technological society that can express itself with differentation. In other words, I would like to see everyone running different platforms and communicating through open standards.
The current open source model has been effective in tearing down an evil monopoly. It’s become so successful that now organizations are trying to own Linux because there is so much profit in open source.
The current open source model has one big weakness however. We are still all running the same code base. This makes Linux vulnerable, and any species that is vulnerable needs to adapt to change or else be exterminated. Open source technology can be based on differentation if the focus is on object oriented technology.
This is a great challenge to open source, and I know that no matter what happens in America, people will never give up open source for proprietary and vendor controlled software. That is simply not possible anymore. I just think that it’s time for open source to make a huge leap. To adapt and be free of the enemy.
The best course of action for IBM is to buy SCO and all their UNIX licenses and copyrights. Afterall, IBM has deep pockets. IBM should then make all the UNIX source code publicly available under http://www.kernel.org. This move will render IBM’s relations with the open source community unbreakable.
If they do that I will break down on tears at the sight of such a generous act! :,)
But I don’t think that is what is going to happen…
LOL.
I’m just worried someone will think it was a serious post rather than an obvious gag and launch into a big flame war.
Differentation is directly related to individualism, which is attractive to people, so the technology of the future will be technology which allows people to express themselves as individuals or else more simply, technology which opens the most doors to individual choice.
The difference between open source technology and vendor technology, is that the power and control over the architecture has shifted from the hands of the vendor to the hands of the people. As we learn to see the difference and acquire more experience, who do you think is going to win? Are people created so that they can serve the goals of the businesses, or should businesses serve the goals of the people? Who’s goals are more important? That is the question at the heart of open versus closed source. Is it more important that IBM defeat the SCO or vice versa for the life or death of Linux forever, or else do we simply forget about these business entities and instead take control of what is already available, a good quality free operating system that is already built for all of us. Why not take what is already there, what possible advantage would IBM or the SCO or any other business bring to the table, when it’s all there already and they just want to control us ..it …the technology.
What I’m trying to say is, the work is all done, and there is nothing that a business can add because they only want to take the control away from the users.
Listen, think about it. If everyone stopped buying Microsoft, IBM, Sun, etc products… we would still have open source Linux, and it would still be just as good if not better, because there would be more open source developers.
Are you preprogrammed to serve the goals of the business to the point where you don’t realize that maybe software businesses are obsolete in the computer industry because because the peoples goals are already discovered. Why not just have all free software technology and have complete control.
I think that if this were to happen than the technology would vastly improve through differentation. The world that we live in handles extreme complexity through decentralization. The objects in this world are not tied to each other, but they ballance responsibilities, and they compete most efficiently through differentation. I would like to see software acquire these characteristics, and I don’t want to serve or work for any company except for the people. If I want to make money from people through software than it will only happen if people are willing to pay for it, they don’t have to.
The FSF has no real money, so what could a vendor sue them for? How could a vendor prevent anyone from using open source (even if it was all 100% copied code, the entire thing) if there is no entity to direct a lawsuit against and not only that, but who would they sell products too, how would the vendor survive if the people choose to win.
> Should you switch Operating Systems or slow down Linux deployments? <
Absolutely NOT! I think that _current_ users should stick with Linux if they are using it in their enterprise: There was no way of knowing whether kernel.org offered tainted sources. This argument renders enterprises immune to any possible SCO attack IMHO. However, I would advise enterprises that consider deploying Linux to wait until SCO has been obliterated in court.
I find the in-line advertising in this article to be reprehensible. Eugenia, I think you will drive people away from your site if you continue with intrusive advertising such as this. For an example of what I am talking about, the word “system” in the first line of the paragraph after the editorial note is underlined as a hyperlink. When I hovered over it, an advertisement appeared! Well, it didn’t take me long to add “127.0.0.1 itxt.vibrantmedia.com”, “127.0.0.1 vibrantmedia.com”, & “127.0.0.1 http://www.vibrantmedia.com” to my hosts file, and the ads were gone!
I think that all contributions to the Linux source code should be anonymous from now on. This decision has value because it will prevent anyone from making a claim to ownership and control. It’s more important that Linux take steps that allow it to adapt, so that it can survive in such a way that it is free.
I think you browser has been smoking some pretty bad crack if it underlines that word.. Have a peek at the source of the page and see that there’s nothing special about that, or any other, word. :/
– Mikael
Why is this guy keep on bothering OSS??? If he is a programmer and the good one, for sure he won’t lost his job to any of OSS programmer. Can he imagine how many programmer still having a good income working under closed source software company such as Microsoft? Unless he himself just know how troll while wotking.
Furthermore, Christian for sure encourage the follower to donate. So if the OSS programmer willingly donate his works why must the others bother about it? I you don’t like to donate then don’t donate!!! If you are complaining because some licence such as GPL prohibited you from stealing
other’s code, it is better for you to work under other closed source platform such as Windows, Mac, Solaris, QNX etc.
I hope SCO will lost so that the others with opportunist thinking will learn a lessons. There must be no way of getting easy money from others works!!!
Whoever buys SCO and UNIX, IF someone does and they want to contribute back to the linux community I hope they do not GPL the Unix Source code, because with the royalty payments they can finally funnel some cash to Linux development with those payments, unless the company gets greedy. And I do think they should keep Microsoft paying and wouldnt that be cool, Microsoft paying Red Hat or IBM.
However, I would advise enterprises that consider deploying Linux to wait until SCO has been obliterated in court.
I do not agree with statement unless SCO openly published the tainted area of Linux by SCO’s patent. In my opinion since the code is not yet published openly, there are no possibility for many others to know how valid the claim is. Until the court give the decision, I think it still safe.
Furthermore, SCO claim (maybe the are the real lier) the legal action is more toward contract issu with IBM rather than the nature of Linux itself. Although we all know this is all about money, let see how much SCO want to spend if they want to sue every company that use or distribute Linux since their case are not strong enough.
Let face up to reality the following is true (probabilty 99.99%) That any common code in between the Linux Kernel and System V is as follows.
1. Derives from BSD and therefore has no copyright restriction (except for the acknowledgment “certain portions of this code copyright the Regents of the University of California”)
2. Derives from code otherwise in the public domain, for example older versions of the Unix codebase that have been made publicly available by SCO and previous owners of the Unix copyrights.
3. Was provided by Caldera/SCO during the Caldera plan to unify Linux and Unixware and was legally placed under the GPL by Caldera management.
4. Code was developed for Linux and has been stolen in breach of the GPL by SCO.
In addition by distributing the GPL Linux kernel until after its legal action was launched it has knowingly placed any SCO copywrighted code in the Linux kernel (0.015 probabilty of SCO owned code present) under the GPL.
Futhemore if SCO does hold the System V copywright not Novell they have not yet legally been transferred. They cannot easily claim damages for infingement prior to their legal transfer.
Im addition the development of SMP for the Linux kernel was partly financed by Caldera (they gave Alan Cox a dual processor machine for this purpose) prior to IBM involvement with Linux involvement with linux.
Probability of SCO winning the court case 0.001%. IBM knows this. They have current access to all the code involved and are just as capable as SCO at running diffs. This is why they are not running in with buyout or settlement offers and adopting a “See ya in court” approach. Furthermore they don’t want to encourage others to line up at the trough with other dubious legal claims.
SCO’s stategy is FUD, FUD and more FUD in an ever increasing crescendo of press conferences. Why ? – in order to intimidate IBM into a buyout or settlement as the FUD scares customers away from Linux and threatens IBM’s multibillion dollar Linux strategy. And if this fails they can still make money on their previously worthless stock options by selling them at the inflated stock price caused by speculation resulting from the legal action.
As for MS they licensed SCO Unix as a means of funelling money to SCO to stop them from going bankrupt too soon so that SCO can keep the anti Linux FUD going.
And thats all there is too it folks.
>>I can see SCO’s point in not wanting the lines to be released. If they were to just publish them to everyone, the first thing to happen would be for them to be removed from the kernel.<<
Nonesense. There are hundreds of thousands of labeled CDROMs out there which – according to scox – contain the offending code.
SCOX offered this lame excuse for not revealing the code early on. Then, in one of many position shifts, SCOX changed their reason and said they could not reveal the code because it was copyrighted. Another lame excuse: copyright would not stop them from revealing the Linux code.
If SCOX had any offending code to reveal, why wouldn’t they sue IBM for copyright violations? Instead of just trade secrets?
Amazing to me that anybody can’t see this for the scam that it is.
Since SCO has now shown “analysts” this code, with the “analysts” stating in public that the lines of code are identical, isn’t it appropriate for Linux kernel developers to start a lawsuit against SCO alleging copyright violation? After all, there is Linux code in UnixWare, right? Absent some proof of origin, which SCO refuses to provide or elaborate upon, there’s nothing to say the code didn’t go in the other direction.
Linux has proof of origin: publically available sources, checkin logs, etc. Sue them for infringement. At the very least, it will put the shoe on the other foot, so to speak, and force SCO to prove the origin of their code to the Linux developers, who would not be bound by any kind of NDA (although SCO might be able to get a gag order). Stop playing by their rules.
Is there any coincidence that DiDio and Claybrook are from Boston? Why is SCO courting press from a state headed by Mormon Governor Mitt Romney?
This is going to boil down to a political decision and who’s in charge? A nice bunch of church sponsored fascists with money interests of their own to protect.
Armand
…what will it cost them? In Germany, the losing party pays all costs for court and lawyers – and with a 1 billion dollar lawsuit…
regards,
Stephan
That Mormon governor has authorized the continuation of the antitrust suit against Microsoft. Massachusetts is one of two states appealing Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s “remedy” – California, Texas, and others have dropped out. And there are probably many Mormon executives working at Novell. So if this is vast Mormon-Microsoft-SCO conspiracy, figure that out.
Better yet, give it a rest.
“Good point ! Ignorance is not an excuse under the law. If what they say is true in terms some of their code be in the Linux kernel then they pretty much had given it up to the GPL gods.”
Agreed that ignorance is no excuse for the law . . . but then again, THEY distributed the code under GPL. Therefore, the specific code should be GPL. Ignorance is no excuse.
Why? This is EXACTLY what SCO wants. Furthermore, what could IBM gain from doing so other than silencing some noise?
Really, SCO should be left to disintegrate like it deserves to do.
And that is really all that matters. The company is valued much higher today than it was a month ago. This has got to please investors and puts a much higher pricetag on a future buy-out.
They will have to prove where it came from. If SCO contributed that code they can’t sue over it. If IBM illegally contributed it, then maybe there is a case against IBM. But by giving away Linux under the GPL SCO will either be violating their license agreement on unixware or the GPL depending on which direction they choose to take.
In either case 80 lines is hardly anything to cry about. I could replace it in one night, and I’m just a sys admin, not a developer.
Can you believe how stupid this all looks when it comes out to be only 80 possible lines of infringing code? That’s like a couple paragraphs out of a book. Put in a comment saying its copyrighted by SCO and even fair use might protect it. This is just silly.
In my earlier days as a programmer I was tasked on more than one occassion to port and/or straight out convert software from one system to another or from one language to another and never did I find the need to copy verbatim the comments from the original system. Bear in mid that I have no idea what these supposed comments were referring to — perhaps generic algorithms. However, typically comments refer to very specific behaviors and constructs within a system that cannot be copied over to another system. However, it may make sense to copy comments if you are using a system as reference for functionality for another. While the code may not be copied, the intent is, but is that illegal?
First of all, IBM should *NOT* buyout SCO. Some people are floating an idea that IBM buying SCO and firing the managment. Actually, that’s what exactly SCO management wants. They want to IBM to shell out $$$ for their stocks. The stock was trading at less than $2 but now trading around $6. If IBM buys them in $8, that’s 400% return on the stock for less than 6 months. I say that’s good investment.
BTW – that gives me an idea. Did anyone look into the agreement between SCO and their lawyers? I remember reading somewhere that the lawyers are working on contingency that they will get certain % of settlment amount. What if IBM buys SCO? Are they going to be get paid if IBM admits they do not admit any wrong doing. Do the lawyers get paid? If they do get paid, I smell some foul plays.
Additionally, I’m a programmer. What can you do with 80 lines of C code with comments? I don’t know about you but 80 lines in C means almost nothing. Just doing pointer operations will take most of lines. Anyway, I would not put much words in these *incompentent* analysts. The fact that they emphasize the /* comment */ rather the logic/algorithm tells me that they have no clue.
At least somebody has some vague idea of what is really happening here.
A $1B judgement against IBM would certainly be felt by IBM. Not only financially, but possibly in their desire to continue working on/using Linux. SCO would also have the legal ammo to go after SUSE, RedHat, etc… and all of the companies using Linux. SCO would want their pound of flesh for patent infringements and would have legal precident to get it. The Linux community would most definately suffer if SCO wins. Just because the offending code could be replaced it doesn’t mean that SCO won’t bother going after monetary damages for the time that the offending code was used.
The key point here is that if SCO wins, in which case IBM no doubt will appeal, but nevertheless, if SCO wins it casts a VAST cloud over the entire commercial Linux community. The cloud it casts is that should SCO prevail, it will have cause, and a much easier case, against the commercial providers.
At that point the commercial providers essentially have a black hole of liability. Even once the code base is made clean, that liability does not instantly vanish. SCO will be going over and start knocking on doors with settlement offers. Should those be met with resistance, then they’ll be followed up with lawsuits to get their remedy.
The even WORSE case scenario is the potential issue that the distributors (Red Hat, SuSE, etc) were “passing the liablility along” to their customers. This implies that Red Hat is not liable, but whoever purchased the product IS responsible and liable. SCO need only approach a few large customers to send a real ugly ripple through the entire Linux customer base.
Then, once it’s all settled, it’ll take a couple of years for the distributors to sell Linux again to a shakey customer base. Red Hat will have to accept liablity for what they distribute (otherwise why should a company take that risk again?). Should Red Hat do that, THAT will be a very solid striking blow to OSS in general. Then they have to be “picky”. “Where did this code come from? Who wrote it? How safe is it?” Look at Red Hat and MP3.
I found that this article really described the situation that SCO is in the middle of. I also agree with IBM and figuring that it abandoned it’s 5L project because Itanium is a bomb. Well I hate to admit it but Itanium is a bomb.
At that point the commercial providers essentially have a black hole of liability. Even once the code base is made clean, that liability does not instantly vanish. SCO will be going over and start knocking on doors with settlement offers. Should those be met with resistance, then they’ll be followed up with lawsuits to get their remedy.
IANAL, of course, but IIRC, you can’t be held liable for copyright infringement if you have no way of knowing you’re infringing the copyright. SCO has not as of yet sent out any cease & desist letters, which would seem to be a prerequisite to collecting any damages, even statutory damages, for infringement. Now, those letters may yet come, but they haven’t come yet, AFAIK. You have to make a good faith effort to stop infringement before you can collect damages for the infringement. (Although you don’t forfeit your right to eventually send the C&D letters & sue for infringement at some time in the distant future – like you do if you fail to defend trade secrets or trademark in a timely fashion).
So there’s no liability to anyone using/redistributing Linux in the good faith belief that SCO is full of it – until SCO sends them a C&D, at which point they could sue SCO for barratry or something like that (assuming SCO is really blowing smoke). With the exception of suing IBM, all SCO has done could be characterized as sabre-rattling – no real legal impact whatsoever.
The real legal danger is that, if they can prove that infringement is taking place (and they’re not the ones infringing), they have the possibility of stopping distribution (and possibly use) of the infringing code. This certainly qualifies as FUD, and if I were a CEO of a large corporation with a huge installed base of Linux systems running mission-critical applications, I might be a little nervous. SCO might be able to shut down my company for a few weeks while the kernel developers sanitize the code.
OTOH, if SCO does send out C&D’s, they’d probably have to identify the infringing code with some specificity, something they’re loath to do right now. Once the code is sanitized, it could pretty well prevent SCO from doing the same thing in the future. And if hundreds/thousands of businesses could be put on “hold” until Linux is “fixed,” it suddenly gives those businesses a nice motivation for funding Linux kernel development. The end result could be a huge influx of funds for a “sanitized” Linux. But I’m probably dreaming….
>>The stock was trading at less than $2 but now trading around $6. If IBM buys them in $8, that’s 400% return on the stock for less than 6 months.<<
SCOX is trading around $9, and hit a 52 week high of $9.92 yesterday. SCOX’s 52 week low was $0.60.
SCOX has not improved in any substantial way since SCOX hit it’s low.
>>Linux kernel developers to start a lawsuit against SCO alleging copyright violation?<<
In fact, SCOX is being sued. German companies are suing SCOX for $250,000 for making false claims.
>>They will have to prove where it came from. If SCO contributed that code they can’t sue over it. If IBM illegally contributed it, then maybe there is a case against IBM. <<
Beleive it not, SCOX has shifted their position yet again. Now they are claiming that it appears the offending code did not come from IBM. Now they are suing IBM for distributing the code.
Now they are claiming that it appears the offending code did not come from IBM. Now they are suing IBM for distributing the code.
Wow. SCO themselves distributed the code…
Well I’m no kernel developer nor a lawyer, but in looking at a Caldera systems cd from 1999 it would appear they added at least some lines of code and comments to to the sources. They explicitly said that it is GPL’d. No doubt such an host person as McBribe would not be refering to code that they themselves released. It must have been <insert company with deep pockets here>.
A case that is even bigger then this is the Novell vs SCO case. If SCO loses that case it will for sure lose all of it’s claims in the IBM case.
I find it absolutely funny as HELL (and Amazing) that they still use the product they are attacking as their backend for their website still…
http://www.netcraft.com/whats?site=www.sco.com
Some people are just so stupid. “Lets sue Linux, but we won’t bother changing what our backend is. No one will notice”.
This should have been the FIRST thing changed. Even right before they came forward with the accusations. That would have at least made sense.
geez
eE
“A source close to SCO, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told eWEEK that parts of the Linux kernel code were copied into the Unix System V source tree by former or current SCO employees.”
http://linuxtoday.com/developer/2003061101226NWKNLL
Hmmm…
I agree on the diagnosis of crack-smoking browser. I think that whatever software/spyware is hotlinking the word “system” resides on your hard drive. Sounds like you’re feeding the virus every time you try to evade it.