IBM Points Out SCO's GPL Software Distribution 482
An anonymous reader writes "Cnet is reporting that IBM has launched a counterstrike against SCO Group's attack on Linux users, arguing that SCO's demands for Unix license payments are undermined by its earlier shipment of an open-source Linux product." JayJay.br points out a similar but more colorful article on The Register "in which SCO says that 'SCO-Caldera does not own the copyrights to JFS (Journaling File System), RCU (Read, Copy, and Update), NUMA (Non-uniform Memory Access) software, and other IBM-developed AIX code that IBM contributed to the Linux kernel.' Gee, now that I was almost buying their license ..."
Re:What about Xenix? (Score:3, Interesting)
And originally a Microsoft product.....
My question is-- what took IBM so long to do this? Or are their lawyers that slow?
badly worded story.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that IBM has evenetually responded to the allocations that SCO has made over the past few months if very important and more-or-less blows the worries of any users out of the window:(IBM will settle the issue)
Where's the meat? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is in contrast to every known FUD convention, where it's normal practice to sign a NDA, look at something secret, wait a few days then quietly have a word in your buddy's ear and get him to post some still-speculative-but-extremely-specific detail of what it is you looked at.
Why the sudden maintenance of SCO's secrecy, when there's an industry-wide history of violating similar NDAs at the first opportunity? How can we not know even the tiniest specific detail of SCO's case, yet we know e.g. details of every close-kept Apple product release several days before Steve Jobs announces it?
A few weeks back, I honestly expected the following to happen:
- a few people sign the NDA and view the code in question
- (nothing happens for a few days)
- new code gets quietly released for functions A, F, H and Z in the kernel, gets exhaustively tested by several key Linux people and very quickly appears in the next kernel release
- confident pronouncements from Linus, RedHat, SuSE etc. that they are absolutely sure the SCO case has no merit, that they believe (but can't confirm) the code in question is "old code no longer in use" and so on
Actually, maybe this happening now and I should keep quiet about it. If so, could someone tell me which step we're up to? I promise not to tell
I Hope SCO wins on that GPL thing (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think it will help anything if section six of the GPL can overrule section one. If the copyright holder did not Know they had code in Linux, they should not be obligated to have that code be considered GPLed because they distribute it.
It is a question of knowledge, and I suspect it would be hard to prove that SCO hadn't just missed a few snippets of code.
A ruling that SCO put its code under the GPL unknowingly would destroy corporate faith in the GPL, and that's a very bad thing.
Also, I don't think it is morally correct to punish for distributing code they did not know about.
Of course, I hope SCO dies painfully a few months later when its law-suit actually hits IBM.
SCO's shell game (Score:5, Interesting)
While SCO predicted that they would obtain 15%-20% of a $3.7bn Web Services market [pcpro.co.uk], I have to admit to being perplexed how this is supposed to happen, and also wondering how well an Internet Explorer-based product could fit into SCO's UNIX offerings.
ComputerWorld has an alternative explanation of the Vultus acquisition, they call it: "SCO's Shell Game [computerworld.com]".
One thing is for sure - it sure is lucky that Vultus was in the same (Canopy-owned) building as SCO [vultus.com] (check the picture), even before the acquisition!
Update: More on this story at GROKLAW [weblogs.com]
Repost: Form-4 filings with the SEC [sec.gov] reveal Executives profiting from SCO stock sales: they made $398,833.90 in June, and $781,964.70 in July (so far)!
Re:What about Xenix? (Score:3, Interesting)
IIRC, the hard drive parameters for Compaq machines of that era were hard-coded in the BIOS. So if you want to upgrade from the 60 megabyte drive that came with the system, you might have to get out your EPROM burner. Good luck!
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Interesting)
If you look at what they've been doing, they've been trying to pump up their stock prices. SCO's execs have been dumping SCO stock almost as fast as they can. This doesn't even sound like a company that is expecting to get a huge infussion of cash from an outstanding legal battle. This is the act of rats trying to bail on a sinking ship. I personally hope the FTC is watching them very closely.
Re:Where's the meat? (Score:3, Interesting)
Otherwise, it may mean that infringing code actually does not exist or is insignificant. Take your pick.
a question about SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
So McBride hatches this FUD plan to sue IBM for copyright infringement despite the fact that the actual code is from their own employees!
Hoping for buyout from IBM..unfortunately IBM has clear records of Caldera employee contributions and thus knows its own contributions to same subsystems and thus know its in the clear and ha snot violated copyrights..
So my question is..
When SCO goes bankrupt aroudn Christmas wil the top execs be charged with fraud for pumping up stock on false information and if so whne can we see MCbride behind bars?
prior art (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I Hope SCO wins on that GPL thing (Score:5, Interesting)
So, now there's two separate issues to address.... (Score:5, Interesting)
2. All that said, there's no resolution of the "copied" code sections Caldera has brought up. From many, many, of their previous statements, it would seem that the technologies mentioned above are what they're trying to milk GNU/Linux users for. If it's *not* NUMA, RCU, and JFS, what, exactly, are the infringments GNU/Linux users are responsible for? I eagerly await a cogent answer, but I know the chances of getting such are slim to none. I will use GNU/Linux (when I'm not playing around with the Hurd) until an individual user loses a lawsuit to SCO over copyright or patent infringement.
Good point in the MozillaQuest Article (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that SCO are saying that the issue is not actually about copyrighted code being in Linux at all. The issue is about IBM putting it there in contravention of their contract to "keep it secret, keep it safe".
However, I understand that IBM's linux teams and the AIX teams were pretty seperate for that specific reason - no cross pollination. So, SCO is saying that algorithms, solutions and ideas are the problem, not code.
<irony>Luckily this area of legal rights on ideas, concepts and algorithms is really clear in the US legal system.</irony>
clips from the article:
This lawsuit is about breach of contract and other tort claims. It is not about copyright infringement.
SCO-Caldera being able to prove that IBM-developed AIX code
Re:Well either way... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, say SCO harassed this lady into getting her to pay for a SCO Unix license. She doesn't have a legal department, and all she sees is that she's somehow liable for stealing something, and buys a license right away.
Months later, they find out SCO was full of shit and in the wrong completely. Was old Mrs. Henderson duped and hornswoggled into buying a license? Well, obviously; but can she get a lawyer and countersue SCO for their aggressive, deceptive tactics? Or is she just up shit's creek, because she should have known better (or hired someone who did)?
SCO CAN win on Derivative works (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a seriously different approach and it constitutes a valid approach to Caldera-SCO's grievance with IBM.
I don't know if they can win, but I know that winning a derivative works argument is substantially easier than winning a copyright violation argument. And if they can convince a judge and jury that they have derivative rights to the AIX code base copyrighted by IBM, either by contract or by copyright, then the contribution of that code base to the Linux kernel is a violation of either the contract or the copyright on System V.
That is the strategy, it seems, and its not something that anyone should be scoffing at, becuase it just might be enough to win.
That said, what would have to happen to undermine that strategy?
An agent of Caldera actively circumventing an existing contract with IBM, if Caldera was the owner of the contract in question at the time of the action, would be a strike against Caldera. That seems to have been shown to be the case by the statements of the former Caldera CEO and a 'Unix-Linux Kernel Integration Engineer' working for Caldera.de making contributions of code and advice to the Linux kernel development team.
A ruling that the AIX code base is sufficiently independant from the System V code base would invalidate the whole issue, regardless of the contract, unless the contract specifically prohibits all copyright distribution rights of code developed on top of the System V code base - something I doubt IBM's legal team would have agreed to.
A ruling in the original BSD case settlement, which is still sealed, that would invalidate the subsequent System V contracts with IBM. I'm not holding my breath.
A body of evidence that proves some Enterprise capabilities in the Linux kernel evolved from non System V / AIX origins. This certainly could be the case with SMP.
It seems important that as the Caldera-SCO strategy becomes clearer, that the opposition is able to dissect the various parts of it into manageable parts with independant solutions.
Ranting about Caldera-SCO is no longer sufficient.
Re:Where's the meat? (Score:3, Interesting)
When you are technically ignorant like SCO's managment you will make these kind of mistakes.
Re:Where's the meat? (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought this stopped being about just code a long time ago. SCO keep moving the goal posts, some of the claims I've read (may not be in cronological order):
- Linux has stolen SCO code inserted by IBM.
- No one is allowed to create Unix-like OS's without paying us.
- All operting systems owe their existance Unix, so we could sue others too.
- JFS, NUMA, etc, technolgies dont belong to IBM, they broke contracts by contributing these.
- SCO's Unix was no.1 on X86 until Linux came along, this could n't have happened without IBM's help.
- All your Linux are belong to us, not just the Linux kernel but also the GNU tools.
- It takes massive corpations and millions of dollars to make the kind of OS that Linux has become so IBM must have help them. Remember Linux is an OS put together by "Punk Ass Kids"
I'm sure there are others I cant recall at the moment. It's amazing how they've managed to twist the original claim of copyright violation to ownership of Linux and the demand of payment for Linux licenses. In hindsight we should have known, there are the guys who purchased DR-DOS just so they could sue MS (not that MS were in the right with regards to DR-DOS). They are also the same people who tried to bring out a per seat model for Linux (not to be confused with support contracts).
[Rant off]
Re:IBM didn't do anything; big battle ahead (Score:1, Interesting)
Then if they do not show him, or put conditions on showing him. The judge would bounce the case so far you would be able to see the arc from the moon.
Even Forest Gump would know that SCO has no case (Score:2, Interesting)
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
------------------
Since SCO distributed their own flavor of Linux, they have relinquised all claims to patent and copyright to alleged SCO code in Linux.
ABOUT TIME! (Score:4, Interesting)
What I'm really hanging out for is some serious action from IBM. For example, if IBM announced that they would indemnify all Linux users against SCO lawsuits brought about due to actions from IBM themselves, then all of this "if you buy a UnixWare license, we won't sue you for using Linux" crap would instantly go away.
If IBM doesn't have the balls to make such a move, then what are they worried about? Even with the very strong technical case they have, their inaction seems weird to me.
Re:I Hope SCO wins on that GPL thing (Score:3, Interesting)
So far, the RCU patch [sourceforge.net] seems to be the focus of the suit. SCO claims this "infringement" was discovered during a recent code audit. As discussed in "How SCO Helped Linux Go Enterprise" [slashdot.org], a clueful Caldera employee publicly acknowledged and encouraged this work.
Based on this information, I hope SCO loses the GPL argument (although I really doubt it will come to that). Otherwise, free software users will always wonder where the next submarine will surface.
Stop missing the point people. (Score:4, Interesting)
"SCO-Caldera being able to prove that IBM-developed AIX code, JFS, NUMA software, RCU, and so forth are derived works under the Unix licenses is the critical and key issue to SCO proving that IBM breached the Unix license agreements. So proving they are derived works brings the IBM developed AIX code, JFS, NUMA software, RCU, and so forth under the umbrella of Unix Software Product as set forth in the Unix Licenses.
"That's because the Unix license prohibits IBM from disclosing Unix Software Product code, methods, secrets, and so forth to third parties. Simply put, if SCO-Caldera can prove that IBM-developed AIX code, JFS, NUMA software, RCU, and so forth are derivate works and therefore part of the Unix Software Product and that IBM disclosed the code, methods, secrets and for them to the Linux developers, then SCO wins its IBM lawsuit."
SCO doesn't need copyright, and they can happily state that IBM *did* develop those bits. But if a judge rules, that those bits are "derived works" and are a part of "Unix Software Product", then they have won their contractual battle.
This is why SCO claim that its "hundreds of files" not "lines" of code. They are including everything IBM developed as derived works and therefore part of "Unix Software Product".
Let's say the judge agrees and they get damages from IBM (for contract violation). The big question is where this leaves linux. They *did* afterall knowingly (ie after the it was pointed out to them) continue to distribute SCO linux under the GPL.
I'm guessing the code will end up being replaced, however this won't be trivial. Developers that have been "tainted" by seeing the code will probably be hesitant to contribute to new versions of those bits. And you can bet SCO will be looking through any new code with a fine-toothed comb.
not so simple (Score:5, Interesting)
We must ask:
1. Did SCO "place a notice" on the program ?
2. Or did they just copy someone else's notice ?
3. Did SCO add ANY of their own code to SCO Linux, under GPL? If so, then they are copyright holder for at least SOME code in the distro.
4. Would that "copyright holder" status spread to the whole distro or stay only the code they willfully added ?
5. What responsibility do they have to check the code they just copy ?
6. Since they are COPYing someone else's code, doesn't that mean they should check to make sure they have PERMISSION ?
7. Did they "place a notice" ?
8. If so, did they do it "as the copyright holder" even if someone else put the code in ?
9. What if they didn't put it in, but they knew it was there ?
10. Once they knew it was there, how quickly did they react ?
simon
Re:ABOUT TIME! (Score:1, Interesting)
1. IBM may give the appearance of being worried by trying to silence SCO, which makes them look like they're trying to cover something up. IBM should do whatever is possible to give the impression of confidence in their victory.
2. Give SCO enough rope to hang themselves with by letting them defame AIX and Linux so they may be able to sue SCO later for damaging their business with reckless and irresponsible claims in the media.
Only slightly better (Score:5, Interesting)
First, I'll note that SCO has never claimed a direct copyright on JFS, etc. They've claimed in the past that that code was a derived work of Unix, implying a copyright interest. If they are in fact abandoning that claim, that is good. It's not clear to me from the article that they are abandoning that claim.
In any case, that code--JFS, etc--is the basis for SCO's suit against IBM. SCO claims that IBM's contribution of that code to Linux violates the terms of the contract which IBM signed with a predecessor of SCO. SCO has tried to claim that that code makes Linux a derivative of SCO's Unix, but they haven't been pushing that claim all that hard, probably because they are aware that it would be very hard to make it stand up in court.
That brings me to the second kind of code which SCO is talking about: code which they claim has been directly copied from Unix to Linux. They claim that this code causes Linux to directly infringe on their copyright on Unix. This is the 80 lines of code which gets discussed here and there--SCO claims there are much more than 80 lines, actually. This is not part of JFS or any of the other code which is part of the IBM lawsuit.
So, in other words, even if SCO abandons all copyright claims to JFS, etc.--and it's still not clear to me that they are abandoning that claim--it does not mean that they are abandoning the claim that Linux violates SCO's IP.
Re:SCO CAN win on Derivative works (Score:2, Interesting)
Why?
Have you used Visual C++? Then by your logic your simple hello world program could be a derivitive work of Windows.
This is just silly.
Its only derivitive if actual SCO code is in the product. If not then its an add-on. Does RCU have SysV code? Then its not a derivitive.
IBM will easily eat SCO for lunch if they are dumb enough to use this trick in court. If anything I would not be supprised if Unixware had some project Montery or AIX code in it. Then IBM could really sue them back and win!
Re:Where's the meat? (Score:5, Interesting)
The scenario you describe did not occur for a few reasons.
First, I signed the NDA in good faith. I knew going in that I was not going to be permitted to disclose the code. Those were the ground rules which SCO set, and it was not my intention to cheat them.
Second, SCO is demonstrably a litigious company. Were they to sue me, that would be a major problem for me. Were they to win a lawsuit, I could lose everything I own and have my wages garnished for eternity. While it's true that it would hardly be worth their while to sue me, the level of risk requires cautious behaviour on my part. Basically, I want to be sure that if the code which SCO showed me is removed from the Linux kernel, that there is absolutely no reason to think that I had anything to do with it.
Third, SCO only showed me one example of what they claimed to be direct copying. They claimed that they had many other examples which they were not going to show me. So even if I were to quietly reveal the one example they showed me, it would not affect their claims significantly. Of course, it is possible that they are lying about having other examples. But since SCO's claims in general rely on FUD, removing one instance of potential direct copying, when there are other claimed instances, would not materially lessen the FUD.
I can't really speak to your suggestion that people routinely violate NDAs. I've never knowingly violated one. Aside from any considerations about keeping my promises, if people became aware that I had violated an NDA, I think it would be quite a bit harder for me to find my next job.
Re:SCO CAN win on Derivative works (Score:3, Interesting)
If SCO is correct about their contract, the second part of their claim will probably stand up. The first part is certainly questionable.
WAIT ONE DAMN MINUTE (Score:3, Interesting)
and i fscking quote....
"Until now the case started off as a contract dispute with IBM and did not involve intellectual property or copyright. As of today it's a different game, and Linux users now do have a copyright issue to deal with," SCO CEO and President Darl McBride told a media teleconference on Monday.
and now i read...
http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-24-Co
Blake Stowell: No we don't, but this is not a copyright case. This is a contracts case. We have taken IBM to court because they are in breach of contract.
so which the fsck is it? and where is the equal time in PHB websites like InformationWeek, etc.. about this new development??
aaaaarrrrghhh. i'm totally frustrated by this nonsense. And where is the SEC when you ened their sorry butts?
Re:SCOX insider trades (Score:3, Interesting)
Employee
Senior Vice President
Sr. Executive Vice President
SCO just doing things by the book. (Score:5, Interesting)
"All this was inspired by the principle -- which is quite true in itself -- that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper stata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes." A. Hitler - Mein Kampf
Re:Double standard, double talk. (Score:1, Interesting)
The people with access to the UNIX source code would likely be prohibited to look at Linux code -- whether you are SCO or IBM, Sun, SGI, or HP.
The only people charged with compare both codebases would be the IP attorneys -- the people who are there to sue someone.
Re:I Hope SCO wins on that GPL thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ahh... (Score:2, Interesting)
Fraud (Score:3, Interesting)
Now it appears that the Linux kernel does not contain their copyright material in any of the areas they themselves have listed. So those letters to Linux users are unrtue. Which either means that they constitute fraud, or that they constitute demanding money with menaces. Both of these are (here in Scotland, at any rate) criminal not civil offences. Has anyone got one of these letters? If not, can anyone suggest how I can provoke SCO to send me one? I would be most delighted to go down to my local police station and file a complaint.
Canopy Group/SCO/Voltus (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/