Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Government Operating Systems Software The Courts Unix Your Rights Online News

SCO Complaint Filed -- Including Code Samples 663

Posted by timothy
from the all-over-the-board dept.
btempleton writes "The folks at Groklaw have posted a story including a preliminary copy of Caldera/SCO's amended complaint, including lines of code they allege were improperly included in Linux. The PDF can be found at this story The file lists unix filenames with line numbers and filenames and line numbers from the Linux 2.2 and 2.4 kernels, so folks can now go into real depth."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Complaint Filed -- Including Code Samples

Comments Filter:
  • by Limburgher (523006) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @07:55PM (#8214916) Homepage Journal
    Temperature in Hell== 31 F and falling. . .
  • by eryk (6051) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @07:56PM (#8214925)
    or anybody else has read "SCO complaint failed"?
  • by Anonymovs Coward (724746) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @07:57PM (#8214931)
    Looks like they're pointing out the JFS, EVMA and RCU stuff which everyone knows IBM contributed and probably did modify from IBM's/Dynix's own code. The dispute is about whether SCO has any rights to that code in the first place.
    • by Chordonblue (585047) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:21PM (#8215104) Journal
      I suspect that IBM has been paying close attention to the 'subversive' activities at Groklaw, but I wonder if they'll ever get any direct credit for it. There's been a great deal of

      PJ and her legal elves certainly deserve our thanks.

      • by paitre (32242) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:52PM (#8215281) Journal
        Groklaw has already been cited as a source in at least one of IBM's briefs to Judge Wells.
        So yeah, they're definately getting direct credit, and due :)

      • by Xenographic (557057) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @10:37PM (#8215824) Homepage Journal
        Indeed, another person mentioned that Groklaw was citied in IBM's legal filings. You might also be interested in this:

        OSRM has simultaneously retained me, part-time, to work on their indemnification project as their Director of Litigation Risk Research. Not only that but they are donating a certain portion of my time to Groklaw, which will free me from having to do so much nonrelated paralegal work and be free to really focus for the next year on this project. I am very excited about the project and I hope we'll have fun too. Groklaw will continue, meanwhile, as it is, and it remains noncommercial and my personal baby. Well, more accurately, ours, because Groklaw wouldn't be much without you.

        Which is from this [groklaw.net] Groklaw article.

        I should also mention that Groklaw, which was originally a completely separate site, has long been hosted by iBiblio. IBM has donated to them.

        That fact, of which no one who knows anything is particularly surprised, is what Daniel Lyons of Forbes added to some random blog posts and turned into a conspiracy article. Barring them firing Mr. Lyons for it, this has sealed my oppinion that their "research" consists primarily of press releases with little or no actual independent research and minimal, if any, editorial oversight.

        In other words, I wouldn't trust their advice for managing a child's lemonade stand, much less my finances.
        • Lyon's prediction (Score:5, Interesting)

          by scoove (71173) on Sunday February 08, 2004 @01:25AM (#8216575)
          Don't forget Daniel Lyons' (Forbes Magazine) big bold prediction (from here [forbes.com]):

          SCO Group will settle its lawsuit against IBM. Both sides will declare victory. The Linux community will turn on IBM.

          The only surprise here is that someone (Forbes) pays Dan to write this stuff (apparently the New York Times's fantasy journalism team was all filled up). Dan goes on to point out that Linux and VoIP technologies are no different than Pets.com and other marketing fluff:

          technologies like Linux and voiceover-IP still involves this crazy notion that companies can make money by giving things away.

          This is like Dan calling electricity a "crazy notion" because he listened to some fly-by-night business scheme involving electrical current. Looks like Forbes is got some fat to trim.

          *scoove*
  • 2.2 Kernel? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Pharmboy (216950) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @07:57PM (#8214933) Journal
    I thought 2.2 was safe. Then again, we thought they were not going after copyright infringement. I'm guessing that is a typo.

    Since SCO has still not actually complied with previous discovery motions, submitted millions of lines of code to IBM in paper form (real class act, they are) and keeps changing their case, my guess is we will see the end of this case, perhaps this year.

    UNLESS, of course, the Novell vs. SCO suit sidetracks the IBM suit until we can figure out who actually owns Unix...
  • I predict (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GoofyBoy (44399) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @07:57PM (#8214937) Journal
    Patches for every single Linux distribution by the end of the week.

    And it will include commented lines "*uck you, SCO"
    • Re:I predict (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TexVex (669445) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:01PM (#8214961)
      That would actually be a bad thing for open source, because it would set bad precedent. It would be much better to wait for the case to be resolved. If and only if it turns out SCO code really is in the kernel should the offending code be replaced. I'd be much more interested in seeing the CVS history of the lines in question -- who put them in and when -- than I'd be in seeing a new "SCO-free" kernel.
      • Re:I predict (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Pharmboy (216950) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:10PM (#8215030) Journal
        That would actually be a bad thing for open source,

        I agree. I admit there is a possibility that there is some bad code in Linux (ala SGI, for instance) but at least now we can look through what they are *claiming* is theirs, research the origins for that code, then make a decision. If there is any questionable code, then do the right thing: replace it. My guess is *if* there is infringing code, it would be very minor sections since any large section would have been spotted by now.

        Ironic that SCO has been doing everything they can to prevent programmers from doing the right thing.
        • Re:I predict (Score:5, Insightful)

          by An Onerous Coward (222037) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @09:58PM (#8215644) Homepage
          One point this thread seems to be missing is that not a single line of the "infringing" lines they've cited were actually from SysV's codebase. They're citing code that IBM authored for AIX, and that Sequent authored for Dynix. Some of it was actually put into the kernel, other bits of code were just provided as reference material for those who wanted to copy it.

          SCO's claim at this point appears to be that, because IBM developed technologies like JFS [wikipedia.org] and RCU [wikipedia.org], [Man, the Wik knows everything] then those technologies automatically became SCO's once they were implemented within a UNIX derivative.

          In my admittedly non-legal opinion, just because a certain OS technique was discovered and perfected on a UNIX-derived platform, that shouldn't mean that IBM loses the right to bring the same technology to any other platform they're interested in.

          It's not about IBM swiping SCO's secret wonder code. It's about IBM developing its own secret wonder code and then being told by SCO that they have no right to use it.

    • No there wont (Score:5, Insightful)

      by boobsea (728173) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:02PM (#8214971) Journal
      That would be an admission of guilt.
    • Re:I predict (Score:5, Insightful)

      by michael_cain (66650) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:24PM (#8215125) Journal
      Patches for every single Linux distribution by the end of the week.

      Won't matter. The code in question appears to be contributions by IBM -- things like JFS. There's never been any question but what IBM made those contributions. Now it's an issue of whether IBM making those contributions violated their old contract with AT&T. Which is exactly what the claims from SCO got pared down to this week.

      Assume for the moment that IBM loses the contract case -- which seems unlikely. In general, it's damned hard to put "trade secrets" back into the bottle once they're out and as widely distributed as these. The court would probably award SCO damages, but would also note that the secrets are no longer secret, which would preclude SCO from actually getting damages or license fees from anyone else. Any real lawyers willing to comment on that?

  • Mirror of PDF (Score:5, Informative)

    by Motherfucking Shit (636021) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @07:59PM (#8214950) Journal
    I've mirrored the PDF file here [phplabs.com]. At 2.5MB a pop, this mirror is subject to disappear at any time, but perhaps it'll alleviate the load on Groklaw for the time being. Please post other mirrors here.

    Thanks PJ for all you do :)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:00PM (#8214955)
    The code lines correspond to blank lines. SCO has obviously copyrighted blank lines.
  • Ah-ha! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ch0ke (129779) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:02PM (#8214967) Homepage
    Line 327 of named file 13 is merely a closing brace.

    j/k
  • Millions of lines? (Score:5, Informative)

    by dtfinch (661405) * on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:03PM (#8214974) Journal
    Looking at their list, there can't be more than a thousand lines there. Most of the matches are about 5-10 lines each.

    And they're ALL written by IBM. And IBM's perpetual license says they own their contributions.
  • Summary (Score:5, Funny)

    by nepheles (642829) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:03PM (#8214976) Homepage
    To save you reading the lengthy PDF, here are some of the major similarities noted:

    'int main ()' appears repeatedly in both UNIX System V and Linux
    '#include ' is also obvious stealing of code, appearing in many Linux source files
    Furthermore, 'for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_LENGTH; i++)' style loops are obviously copied by IBM developers intimately familiar with the original implementations.

    SCO's case is strong.
  • by YouHaveSnail (202852) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:06PM (#8214997)
    Very interesting. According to SCO:

    - Linux is derived from System V. (75)
    - IBM has endeavored to control the open source community. (76)
    - IBM plans to destroy UNIX. (77)
    - Linus Torvalds can't say who contributed what to Linux. (78)
    - A significant amount of UNIX source code is present in Linux 2.4-2.6 kernels. (79)
    - Linux developers are incapable of developing enterprise-grade software without stealing from SCO. (80, 81)
    - Only IBM's involvement in Linux made Linux viable for enterprise use, and because IBM had access to System V (82), if follows that
    - if follows that Linux is a clone of UNIX. (83)
    • by Turmio (29215) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @09:29PM (#8215500) Homepage
      - Linux developers are incapable of developing enterprise-grade software without stealing from SCO. (80, 81)
      Yes, very interesting indeed. Perhaps they should take a look at arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c file of any recent kernel:
      /*
      * x86 SMP booting functions
      *
      * (c) 1995 Alan Cox, Building #3 <alan@redhat.com>
      * (c) 1998, 1999, 2000 Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
      *
      * Much of the core SMP work is based on previous work by Thomas Radke, to
      * whom a great many thanks are extended.
      *
      * Thanks to Intel for making available several different Pentium,
      * Pentium Pro and Pentium-II/Xeon MP machines.
      * Original development of Linux SMP code supported by Caldera.
      *
      * This code is released under the GNU General Public License version 2 or
      * later.

      Original development of Linux SMP code supported by Caldera. Damn those Linux hippies are outrageous people! First they steal from you and then they have the nerve to thank you. Bastards. Also repeated in an old SMP page by Alan Cox [linux.org.uk].
  • The claimed code (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Valar (167606) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:07PM (#8215002)
    The claimed lines of code appear to be in jfs (which is from AIX, not Sconix), evms (once again from AIX), and RCU. Total number of lines is about 600, plus a few complete files claimed to have be contributed illegally by sequent. I fail to see how IBM is prevented by their contract from contributing their own enhancements (or hell, compatible implementations of their filesystems). The rest of the document seems to just be complaining that with IBM's help, linux is going to wipe a lot of proprietary unixes off of the map. Which I believe fails under the legal term "toughus-fucking-luckus."
  • by jeffkjo1 (663413) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:10PM (#8215024) Homepage
    They are still flogging JFS, in spite of the widely known reports that both the current AIX and Linux versions were developed from the IBM OS/2 version of JFS.
    Any code in common is probably easily found in the OS/2 sources.

    The above text was blatently stolen from a groklaw comment.
  • heh. Check out #87 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by the_Speed_Bump (540796) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:16PM (#8215064) Homepage

    87. By making the Linux operating system free to end users, IBM could undermine and destroy the ability of any of its competitors to charge a fee for distribution of UNIX software in the enterprise market. Thus, IBM, with its army of Global Services integrators who earn money by selling services, would gain a tremendous advantage over all its competitors who earn money by selling UNIX licenses.

    Seems like someone's sore because IBM has a better business model.

    • by Whyte (65556) on Sunday February 08, 2004 @12:59AM (#8216469)
      Its also a false predication in that IBM is supposedly responsible for making Linux free. Because it couldn't be possible that IBM recognized a "successful" development community and positioned itself to gain financially by becoming an early adopter. Of course it's only slightly more amusing that SCO themselves tried to capitalize on "free" software... but failed.

      The entire court filing is full of this type of crap.
  • by RyanFenton (230700) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:16PM (#8215069)
    "21. By way of example, in the personal computing market, Microsoft Windows is the best known operating system. The Windows operating system was designed to operate on computer processors ("chips") built by Intel. Thus, Windows serves as the link between Intel-based processors and the various software application that run on personal computers."

    I count at least 3 major logical errors in that section, and find it's existence in this document unjustified.

    1. Windows is not an operating system, but a family of them - Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows NT are the operating systems.
    2. They were not all designed with Intel as the only manufacturer of systems that the OS should work on.
    3. The OS does much more than work with processor "chips".

    It seems unlikely to me that lawyers proefficient with modern computer systems worked on this document.

  • by arivanov (12034) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:17PM (#8215081) Homepage
    54. At this point in time, IBM's UNIX expertise was centered on its own Power PC processor. IBM had little or no expertise on Intel processors.

    Even if we ignore what the term IBM PC means, even if we ignore iRMS, even if we ignore OS2 this still leaves AIX/386 which as far as I recall used to run a considerable part of NATO radar infrastructure. OK, IBM insisted on it being useable only on boards with 1M L2 cache, but I it happily ran on much less then that.

  • by aws4y (648874) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:20PM (#8215094) Homepage Journal
    All of the Files are from AIX and Dynx! The only way these conrtibutions are improper is if IBM cannot contribute ANY of its home grown code into linux. There was a bit of a row about this on the LKML before JFS was accepted. I also find this paragraph odd (113 under First Cause of Action)

    IBM has violated 2.01 of the Software Agreement by, inter alia, using and assisting others to use the Software Products (including System V source code, derivative works, documentation rrelated thereto and methods based thereon) for external purposes that are different from, and broader than, IBM's own internal business purposes. By actively supporting, assisting and promoting the transfer of UNIX technology to Linux, and using its access to UNIX technology to accomplish this objective, IBM is (a) using the Software Product for external business purposes, which include use for the benefit of Linus Torvalds, the general Linux community and IBM's Linux distribution partners, Red Hat, Inc., Novell, Inc., SuSE Linux AG and their respective subsidiaries; and is (b) directly and indirectly preparing unauthorized derivative works based on the Software Products and unauthorized modifications thereto in violation of 2.01 of the Software Agreement.

    Notice that SysV code is not listed amongst the files in the complaint. The above claim is only true in the case that SCO's Idea of a derivative work is valid.

    IMHO, this is actually a reasonable leagal document, where there may be an actual dispute over the idea of a derivative work. However, SCO should not be allowed to change its tack in the middle of discovery, until now this case has been about a claim of copying of sysV code and breach of contract, but now they are claiming here that there was no copying and IBM breached its contract by contributing code that IBM owns into Linux. SCO no longer claims, as they did in there initial filing, that IBM improperly contributed sysV code into Linux. This should not be allowed on the grounds that until now, SCO has been using improper contributions of sysV code attempt to persuade people to pay license fees. This also means that SCO has once again lied publicly about the ammount severity of the copying. In fact the Linux community would not be a party to the dispute if JFS, RCU, and NUMA were removed from the kernel. (These documents do not explain how SMP is affected accept by NUMA.) In that case the court cannot ignore what SCO has stated in public, while allowing them to state something substantivly different in court, its one or the other SCO, not both.

    In any case Linux is indemnified by the fact that they asked IBM if all of there technologies were contributed in good faith, IBM said yes, and the Kernel development community had no reason not to belive them.

    I still think that SCO has a lot of explaining to do when this is all said and done.

    • by Crispy Critters (226798) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:51PM (#8215273)
      "IMHO, this is actually a reasonable legal document, where there may be an actual dispute over the idea of a derivative work."

      There isn't any meaningful dispute. The agreements with AT&T covering both AIX and Dynix code use "derivative work" in the same way it is understood in all copyright law. There is nothing in the agreement that suggests that code which contains no copyrightable elements of SysV is a derivative work. The famous clause about treating derivative works the same as the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is just a statement of normal copyright protection.

      Although she hasn't said so, this is the way the judge sees it. That is why she ruled in December that SCOG gets no discovery from IBM until they make their claims with specificity. They said they can't do this until they get the AIX development codebase from IBM, and the judge ignored them.

  • by lokedhs (672255) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:23PM (#8215115)
    After seeing the lists of files SCO has published, it's now clear why they have requested every single source release of AIX and Dynix.

    If you look at the list, you'll notice that most of the files are header files. These header files are probably available in the off-the-shelf releases of these OS'es. They have then probably does some compare and came up with the resulting list.

    If they get all sources from IBM, they probably will perform the exact same comparison, but on all the new files they got.

    However, we shouldn't be so worried about this. According to one post [groklaw.net] on groklaw, the contents of these files are mostly #include's anyway.

  • Connections.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by -tji (139690) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:26PM (#8215137) Journal
    I just noticed that the first lawyer listed on this SCO document is "Brent O. Hatch", the son of Utah Senator Orrin Hatch.
  • by starseeker (141897) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:27PM (#8215139) Homepage
    "78. However, as is widely reported and as IBM executives knew, or should have known, a significant flaw of Linux is the inability and/or unwillingness of the Linux process manager, Linus Torvalds, to identify the intellectual property origins of contributed source code that comes in from those many different software developers. If source code is code copied from protected UNIX code, there is no way for Linus Torvalds to identify that fact."

    Um. If source code was copied from protected UNIX code, how the @#$@%@# would Linus know about it? He doesn't have access to the protected source code - it's protected! The only way to know is if the owners of the protected source code make the claim and are able to back it up! How can Torvalds be faulted for not being clarvoyant? Do they mean identify it after the fact? AFAIK no one can say yet that the origins of code X can't be identified. SCO hasn't even let us TRY - they won't tell us what they want identified!

    If what they are actually saying is that open source shouldn't be allowed to proceed simply because it doesn't have massive paperwork assigning every bit of code to some source, they've been hitting the crack again. Email archives, content management back trails anyone? And we can go further than that if we are really forced to - the FSF has been getting copyrights assigned to it for years just in case things come to that pass, and if it becomes utterly necessary that might become common practice.

    What I'm hoping will come out of all this is a way that open source projects can set themselves up so that no one can sue them without them actually having done something wrong. (OK, OK - I know anyone can still bring the lawsuit. I mean create a situation where the project dispose of the suit in such a way that it doesn't cost the project or developers much of anything and discourages idiots like SCO from attempting it.) That would be useful, and if SCO is the start of a trend may become very necessary.
  • by Dr_Marvin_Monroe (550052) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:28PM (#8215158)
    Ok, I read the article, common groklaw reader...

    Here's the issue as best as can be broken down from the whole case Paragraph "IBM's Scheme"...section 91)

    IBM, however, was not and is not in a position legally to "open source any part of AIX that the Linux community considers valuable." Rather, IBM is obligated not to open source AIX because it contains SCO's confidential and proprietary UNIX source code, derivative works, modifications and methods.
    AIX's confidential and propriatery UNIX source code extends only to the code that IBM got from SCO originally to start development from.

    As an author of add-in modules and enhancements, IBM can distribute under MULTIPLE licenses...It can choose dual license if it wishes....OSS and AIX/SCO.

    SCO must now show where their original license stipulates "..all your base..." Failing that, IBM can do whatever it wants to do with it's own creations.

  • A damp squib, again (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bheading (467684) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:30PM (#8215173)
    In this document SCO identify three groups of what they regard as "infringing" code. They readily admit that the number of examples they can provide is somewhat limited due to the fact that they don't possess themselves enough evidence to prove it. "Damn it, I know they stole it from us - if only I could get the evidence to prove it!".

    The first set (Table A) is JVS code. As we all know JFS is an IBM/AIX creation, so with this SCO will be focussing on their "derived work" argument.

    The second set (Table B) is EVMS code. Again, this is a less-mentioned contribution from IBM AIX into Linux. Again, this will be SCO's "derived work" according to their skewed worldview.

    The third and fourth sets are the most interesting (Table C and D). They identify stuff allegedly lifted from Dynix (Sequent) code. I could not find the rclock.* or the kmemdef.* files in 2.4.18 or in 2.4.1 (the version they've named), I presume they were removed at some point - Torvalds or someone else could probably identify when.

    In Table D, the code they've highlighted in the 2.4.1 apic.c file consists of #include lines, some comments, and a very basic "if" statement in the middle of some SMP related code for handling timer interrupts, it seems. It's the same in timer.c, they're also complaining about lines which refer to Alpha or IA64, rather odd since they never wrote code concerning those CPUs.

    The entry.S reference they've made, going by the code comments, refers to code which switches an i386 back into user mode following a system call. (guess mode - the set of assembly mnemonics to put an i386 into user mode is likely to be very standard; the default code was probably provided free of charge by Intel years and years ago, and probably found it's way into every i386 memory-protected OS written!).
    The same seems true of traps.c. The main.c lines are just some includes and some static declarations.

    I also did some casual Google searches to see if any of the alleged infringing lines of code showed up anywhere. In all the cases I checked, the lines show only in Linux kernels, and not anywhere else. If this code did appear elsewhere then it isn't immediately obvious where it came from.

    So I really don't think that SCO has much of a leg to stand on here ...
    • by BiggerIsBetter (682164) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @09:01PM (#8215339)
      EVMS wasn't actually accepted into Linux by Mr Tovalds. About the only place you'd find it was in SCO and United Linux kernels.
    • by Monkelectric (546685) <slashdot AT monkelectric DOT com> on Saturday February 07, 2004 @10:38PM (#8215829)
      entry.S reference they've made, going by the code comments, refers to code which switches an i386 back into user mode following a system call. (guess mode - the set of assembly mnemonics to put an i386 into user mode is likely to be very standard; the default code was probably provided free of charge by Intel years and years ago, and probably found it's way into every i386 memory-protected OS written!). The same seems true of traps.c. The main.c lines are just some includes and some static declarations

      I happen to have a copy of "80386 System Software Writer's Guide" by Intel on my desk (ala 1987). This book provides a framework for OS development on the 386 and alot of code to boot. If the entry.S code is derived from Intel code it would be in this book or a later edition. The idea is really not that far fetched. Writing protected mode entry/exit code is at best tedious and entirely unnecessary as intel not only provided code, but in most cases the optimal solutions to the problem as no one understood the nuances of protected mode better then them.

  • How it works... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ackthpt (218170) * on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:32PM (#8215180) Homepage Journal

    IBM Develops some technology for OS/2

    IBM adds it to AIX

    SCO (claiming to own copyrights to Un*x) says anything derivative of Unix (AIX in this case) becomes their IP

    SCO Sues IBM for copyright infringement

    IBM demonstrates this technology existed prior and was given to both operatings systems as an add-on

    SCO loses

  • by Arimus (198136) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:37PM (#8215202)
    SCO seem to be saying IBM knowingly contributed code to Linux knowing it would help linux succeed over traditional Unix flavours...

    So let me get this right IBM gave code from their expensive product to a free product...

    Hmmm.... why???

    SCO should be made to demonstrate what motivation IBM had in acting this way -- other than IBM knowing they could sell services better than OS's...
    • That's an easy one (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MOMOCROME (207697) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (emorcomom)> on Saturday February 07, 2004 @09:39PM (#8215563)
      It is plain-as-day that IBM's adoption of Linux is yet another thrust/counter-thrust in the decades old struggle against Microsoft, especially now that they threaten the Enterprise market with increasingly robust NT 5.0 based system software (laugh if you want, but that's how you need to see it when painting the Big Picture).

      By pushing the free OS, Big Blue can use it to sell consultancy, support and best of all, the leases on their fantastically expensive hardware, while at the same time undermining win2k based systems and harnessing the power of volunteering and crazed idealogue hobbyist developers.

      It's a masterstroke strategy, where the payoffs easilly make up for the $Billion Dollar outlay and there are beau-coup bucks more to be saved by phasing out the proprietary UNIX development.
  • by brsmith4 (567390) <brsmith4.gmail@com> on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:45PM (#8215235)
    Wow, a collection of header files that have similar function declarations!!! Unreal! Those IBM bastards!

    Correct me if I am wrong, but POSIX compliance does not require a license from SCO. Defining these functions similarly to the SysV style is not a breach of IP. It's the code that these functions represent that may be in breach, but SCO does not outline any of this.

    Also, the JFS file system is IBM's own work. Yes, if IBM makes a change to the actually system v code base by adding jfs, then those changes are only usable by the licensees. But there is no indication that the implementation of JFS made any impact on that SYSV standard. Its a code base that is external to the licensed system v code and is therefore not under any of SCO's jurisdiction.

    In conlusion, their case is null and void. I hope their board of directors spend a few years behind bars for this spectacular abuse of the US legal system. Maybe IBM can pay off some inmates to make Darl someones bitch.
  • by compactable (714182) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:52PM (#8215279) Homepage
    Can someone explain why SCO sends people like Weiss & Dal's little brother to the plate when they're clinging to life? These people are wet farts. I would rather be defended by my grandmother in court, and she thinks she's a horse. Really. They just gave Boies millions & a stake in the company - where the uckfa is he?

    And yes, I now this is not 100% on-topic. However I think the disappearance of a key figure is noteworthy (I would argue more so that SCO claiming ownership of IBMs work, as they are here).
  • Interesting move (Score:5, Insightful)

    by salesgeek (263995) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @08:57PM (#8215313) Homepage
    SCO's filing was 80% fluff and was filled with a lot of mistruth concerning the os marketplace. Looks like it comes down to one question: does SCO or IBM own JFS. The answer there is obvious. Regardless, SCOs bantering about wanting $600 per processor and the like are silly - most linux users don't use JFS anyway. At the end of the day we can expect more suits like this as Linux erodes the value of intellectual property. And it's important to remember that an idea is only valuable if it is a comparitively good idea... Had SCO continued to innovate, and adapt to the market there would be no reason to sue. Linux exists because Unix vendors screwed users for far too many years.
  • Version 2.4.1-01 (Score:5, Informative)

    by akruppa (300316) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @09:12PM (#8215399) Homepage
    In case you were wondering what kernel version 2.4.1-01 is and why the files/line numbers shown in the complaint are not there/all bogus: apply the RCU patch found here [sourceforge.net], bottom of page, to kernel 2.4.1.

    Alex
  • by mybecq (131456) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @09:26PM (#8215471)
    Here is the crux of the (contract) case:
    [A] personal, nontransferable and nonexclusive right to use in the United States each Software Product identified in the one or more Supplements hereto, solely for Licensee's own internal business purposes and solely on or in conjunction with Designated CPUs for such Software Product. Such right to use includes the right to modify such Software Product and to prepare derivative works based on such Software product, provided the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original Software Product.
    Copyright law states [cornell.edu]:
    The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work...
    Thus, IBM owns the copyrights to any files that it created. This is because each individual file that was written is considered a separate work (I believe).

    Furthermore, SCO has no copyrights to IBM's code (they only own copyright to their own code, that's why they can't force IBM to give it to them). Quoting copyright law:
    The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
    According to SCO:
    Such right to use includes the right to modify such Software Product and to prepare derivative works based on such Software product, provided the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original Software Product.
    So perhaps it is possible that IBM violated the contract by not keeping any contributed source within the license scope, although did they not meet this condition by keeping the AIX derivative work to themselves? (The materials being the final derivative work that is AIX.) They are free to use their own copyrighted code wherever they please. Of course IANAL, so judge for yourself.
    • by michael_cain (66650) on Sunday February 08, 2004 @01:07AM (#8216506) Journal
      So perhaps it is possible that IBM violated the contract by not keeping any contributed source within the license scope, although did they not meet this condition by keeping the AIX derivative work to themselves? (The materials being the final derivative work that is AIX.) They are free to use their own copyrighted code wherever they please. Of course IANAL, so judge for yourself.

      No, they are free to use their own copyrighted code wherever they please, subject to the terms of a contract that they signed prior to writing that code in which they agreed to limitations on those uses. The contract appears to allow them to use the code in binary form in any of their own products. But it also says that they can't reveal the methods (eg, source code) without AT&T's (now SCO's) permission. There's an addendum to the contract that appears to provide them with a way out of that part of the agreement. One interesting part of the case will be those bits that came from Dynix; they were developed under a contract like the one IBM signed, but without the addendum; when IBM bought those bits, they probably can't bring them under the IBM addendum.

      IBM really needs to have this case play out all the way, in order to establish once and for all what portions of their work the contract applies to. SCO's betting a real long shot here, and there's no way IBM can be found liable for $5B in damages to SCO, but it needs to get settled.

  • by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @09:35PM (#8215534)
    I remember some 9 years back attending a Win NT Server Developer's conference in Seattle. I still have the Tshirt! At the time, SCO, Interactive or other x86 *nix options were around $500-$1000 a pop and a lot of people got sucked in to using NT on servers because it only cost about $300 a pop and was way easier to administer than SCO or Interactive.

    Blaming the demise of SCO on Linux is stupid. They were not moving forward. What really killed the horse drawn carriage was the motor vehicle changing the whole business. SCO blaming Linux for loss of biz is really having a big scratch through the garbage can. Linux is part of a *nix renesance that SCO is not contributing to, and IMHO, has no rights to.

  • by phr1 (211689) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @11:06PM (#8215950)
    The SCO filing says something like "here's these couple dozen short patches of directly copied code, and discovery on IBM's AIX codebase will show millions more". This filing isn't trying to prove there's enough infringement that damages can be collected. All it's trying to show is that there's the faintest glimmer of evidence that even the slightest infringement occurred, in order to get further discovery and delay the case some more. IOW it's yet another attempt to circumvent the judge's order to show with specificity where all the infringement is.
  • Cooties! (Score:5, Funny)

    by jms (11418) on Sunday February 08, 2004 @01:36AM (#8216611)
    In order to understand SCOs theories, one must first understand the theory of cooties. Cooties are invisible ickies that can be transmitted, usually by touch, but often by mere association.

    Under the Cootie theory of copyright and trade secret law, Linux looks like Unix, so now Linux has cooties. IBM touched Unix, thus giving cooties to AIX. JFS acquired cooties when it was ported to AIX, even though JFS didn't have cooties when it was originally developed. Thus, Linux has cooties because it has AIX's cooties which AIX got from staring cross-eyed at Unix. Linux has the same header lines as Unix, therefore Linux has Unix cooties. In conclusion, anyone touching Linux will get cooties and owe a cootie tax to SCO, which will soon have more money than Scrooge McDuck.

    For more information, see "Everything I needed to know about intellectual property law I learned on the elementary school playground.", by Darl McBride.

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...