The SCO Trial Through A New Lens 362
An anonymous reader writes "On Yahoo! News they've got an article by Paul Murphy entitled, SCO, IBM and Outcomes-Based Circular Reasoning. Murphy claims to be 'a 20-year veteran of the I.T. consulting industry, specializing in Unix and Unix-related management issues'. He writes, 'By itself this was a straightforward contractual dispute that could, and should, have been settled quickly and easily.' And that, 'Although SCO hasn't formulated its complaint in this way, I believe it could meet these, or similar, requirements quite easily and therefore has every reason to be confident that the court will eventually enforce its stop-use order against IBM.' He also goes on to insult Linux advocates by stating that, 'the position being run up the flagpole by what Stalin famously called "useful idiots" is first that the lawsuit itself is no longer a real issue and secondly that its consequences have been generally positive.'"
Could SCO have a chance after all? (Score:5, Interesting)
Something else I found interesting in the article...
To some, the fact that SCO sees Linux as a Unix clone not only makes holding that view morally wrong but requires the immediate repudiation of nonbelievers and indeed the remarketing of Linux as "not Unix" -- a move that would replace the academic and open-source heritage powering its development with a lie and thus destroy it.
From the article... (Score:5, Interesting)
The crux of the matter is this: IBM does not have to prove previous processes were uncontaminated to win the case -- rather, the burden is on SCO to prove that they were, and they don't appear to have come up with anything substantial. Perhaps this is a wake-up call to open source developers to vet submitted code carefully, but I don't believe the wishful thinking is coming from the Linux camp.
Third Paragraph Says It All (Score:5, Interesting)
If you read the beginning of the article, it sounds like the author assumes that SCO is in the right, but that has yet to be proven. I thought that's what courts were for.
Where does he get this stuff? (Score:5, Interesting)
Says you. I can see how an entity might be on firmer legal ground if they adopt the procedure you've outlined. However, to say that legal reverse engineering "requires" two teams is a total fabrication.
What a troll article.
Re:Bad argument (Score:5, Interesting)
As an aside, reverse engineering was never necessary to understand or duplicate a unix kernel and is therefore his mention of it is a complete red herring.
Not only that, it proves a vital misunderstanding of what UNIX was and is; from the start it was an operating system that had its inner workings laid completely bare and published, at least to all who asked - and later it became a specification (POSIX and the OpenGroup's UNIX trademark).
Why isn't SCOX taking on Microsoft? Windows NT 4.0 was POSIX compliant (at least in name), therefore it was cloned, and since it wasn't reverse-engineered (rather, tacked on to a VMS-kernel rip-off), Microsoft MUST have stolen SCOX' precious code, since every UNIX clone MUST be stolen, right? Right?
Perhaps it's time... (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone know of a similar comparison by IBM comparing AIX and Linux?
If they haven't done one, perhaps it's time for one. While they couldn't publish examples of the code, but they could do a similar comparison and post the results only.
His other works and his forum. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Could SCO have a chance after all? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know it's a hard concept for the non-techie to grasp, but it goes like this:
UNIX is a trademarked word. UNIX is also a POSIX compliant operating system. In order to be a posix compliant operating system, an operating system must follow X, Y, and Z criteria. Linux follows X, Y, and Z criteria. Linux is a POSIX compliant operating system. The Linux code has been built from scratch with the aim of being POSIX compliant. Since the POSIX standard is based on the UNIX operating system, Linux is a relative of, but not a derivitive of, UNIX.
That's not exactly it, but it's close enough, and simple enough, that a reporter can digest it.
So, in some ways, you could say "Linux is a UNIX clone". In the same ways, you could say "Margarine is a Butter clone". Margarine was built from scratch, using entirely different ingrediants than butter, but with the aim of looking, smelling, and tasting like butter. But, margarine is not butter. However, I don't think anyone who went around calling margarine "Not Butter" is going to kill either industry.
So, I'm not even sure I know what this guy is trying to say. It sounds like he thinks that we are mad that SCO says linux is a unix clone. I don't know a linux user that would be bothered by this statement. All we (as linux users) are saying is "Linux contains no stolen copyrighted code from Unix", and "Linux is not Unix". And maybe a "Linux is similar enough in function to Unix that they share a computing standard".
~Will
Re:Bad argument (Score:4, Interesting)
sPh
The epic struggle (Score:4, Interesting)
In Darl's infamous open letter [sco.com], he clearly defines the combatants:
Despite the raw emotions, however, the issue is clear: do you support copyrights and ownership of intellectual property as envisioned by our elected officials in Congress and the European Union, or do you support "free" - as in free from ownership - intellectual property envisioned by the Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and others? There really is no middle ground. The future of the global economy hangs in the balance.
This is not a disinterested "I'm just thinking about my shareholders" approach. After bringing in discussion about competing interpretations of the Constitution, Darl ends the monologue with this:
We take these actions secure in the knowledge that our system of copyright laws is built on the foundation of the U.S. Constitution and that our rights will be protected under law. We do so knowing that those who believe "software should be free" cannot prevail against the U.S. Congress and voices of seven U.S. Supreme Court justices who believe that "the motive of profit is the engine that ensures the progress of science."
The stated intent of SCO is to eliminate free software, because SCO views the mere existence of free software as incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. To me that's about as extreme a position as you can take, given that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that creators are not free to give away their works as they see fit.
Re:Bad argument (Score:1, Interesting)
Nope. The original UNIX was not open source, not published and not in the public domain. It was a proprietary AT&T OS.
Re:What an idiot. (Score:4, Interesting)
The point is that it's a *defence* which an alleged infringer can bring up *after* the complainant shows the copied code. You don't argue from lack of clean room to copyright infringement - it's absurd without first showing the copied code.
As the parent post says; when your reimplementing something, chances are you will create identical code because there are only so many ways to implement various functions.
If SCO could... (Score:3, Interesting)
But here is what it actually comes down to: what SCO has done, and is doing -- indeed the only thing they *can* do...
SCO has proved through this absurd circus-show that they are motivated by profit margins, political assassination of FOSS, and spreading FUD about the whole Linux development community.
And what is this whole talk about when Linux "... became a new kernel by March of 1991 and a whole new Unix clone when file system processing was internalized in June." That is the pivot point that makes Linux a "UNIX clone?"
Linux is anything but a "UNIX clone." We could point to a lot of things that linux is *kind of like*. Linux is kind of like BSD, or Minix, or even some parts are like UNIX -- but it is anything but a "UNIX clone" -- linux is a GNU clone, hence whole NotUnix thing (get the acronym?).
The overall article speaks of somebody who has a command over *NIX rhetoric, but very little command over what makes a *NIX and how they work. He shows a little knowledge of AT&T UNIX history, but very little knowledge of a *NIX varient in terms of technology and development.
It is ironic that Paul Murphy references the 1982 IBM legal case. The conclusion that he positing -- potential SCO victory over IBM -- would be the tipping point that would thrust us away from FOSS progress and back into the land of proprietary obfuscation -- the exact opposite from what IBM's defeat in 1982 meant to the tech world. Instead of gaining freedom from proprietary operating systems we would be gaining again the time when one (or at least very few) companies could hold total control over where and what computers do and making us pay for it at the same time. No offense Mr. Murphy, but after being a "20-year veteran of the I.T. consulting industry..." you would think you would have gained one thing: a clue.
Re:Bad argument (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's start with his argument that Linux didn't spring from nothing, which is the same bit you talk about. Uhhh, nobody claimed it did and by claiming that it didn't, he is being disenginious as to what it is people are claiming. Contradict something often enough, and you'll convince people that the thing you're contradicting must exist for it to be contradicted in the first place.
You're correct that there is a difference between UNIX the API (now defined by the POSIX and Unix98 standards), and UNIX the AT&T Operating System. APIs cannot be copyrighted, trademarked or patented, although they CAN be considered trade secrets. (This is why BSD can be clean of AT&T code, but yet implement a 100% AT&T-compatiable API, and why Microsoft won't publish a complete API for Windows.)
An API is merely a specification. A description of what goes into routines and what comes out. Nothing more. It does not define HOW things are done, nor how things are organized. The former can be patented, the latter can be copyrighted. As neither apply in this case, it is a fallacy to argue that IP is material.
When you look at his book, you begin to understand the guy better. He has zero understanding of the industry, but is excellent at producing technobabble. The Unix Guide to Defenestration [winface.com] is likely to be the No. #1 worst technical book of this decade.
He brags about his 20 years as an IT consultant. Well, I like to brag too. I have 25 years, as consultant, programmer, administrator, network architect, researcher,
Re:Bad argument (Score:3, Interesting)
We did not see the code, it was not ours to to start with, and it was allowed any way?
Try this: We did not see the [SysV] code, it was not ours to to start with, and [the BSD code] was allowed.
Now, how is this at all fallacious?
Re:Bad argument (Score:1, Interesting)
And you're correct. They were standards that were transferred to the IEEE. Mostly because NIST decided that they didn't really need to push for standards anymore, as a result of a decision at Commerce. Some of this was probably pressure because DoC and NBS/NIST were attempting to enforce POSIX compliance for all government systems, and about 70% of government "systems" were desktop computers running Wintel, which was not POSIX compliant. It was a huge nightmare in $$$$$$$$.
Now, IEEE has it, and the world has evolved since POSIX, and it's not really an issue any more, at least for the US Gov.
Re:Bad argument (Score:1, Interesting)
But you missed my point altogether, which was that Microsoft didn't need to purchase a license to do POSIX. I was merely agreeing with wfberg on that point.
And OS/2 and Warp never had a journalling file system quite like what IBM implemented in AIX. As I recall, that file system actually appeared in AIX first, and early versions were being developed on the CS9000. You may not recall that, an early IBM Xenix computer that predated their RS6000 AIX system. There was some research done while the CS9000 was out on a journalling file system. That was in 1983, and OS/2 didn't start to surface until 1986.
Well, that's my recollection, anyway. I worked with all those systems, and I remember being pleasantly surprised to see some of the AIX developments make it to OS/2. I was a big user of OS/2 for a long time, right next to my AIX - RS6000s and Chromatics systems.