SCO Claims Kernel Contains UnixWare Code 606
ergo98 writes "SCO has increased the intensity of the lawsuit with IBM by claiming to hold indisputable proof that copyrighted UnixWare code found its way into Linux, violating the rules of both camps. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen: SCO refuses to divulge the code in question, however they promise to reveal it in court shortly."
Does anyone even pay attention to SCO anymore? (Score:5, Interesting)
It also isn't clear if SCO is referring specifically to Redhat userland, redhat kernel patches or what. It's only clear that they don't mean specifically the Linux kernal as found on kernel.org.
-If you wish to make a complaint, press 1. If you wish to wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are, press -- what else? -- the star key.
Re:Does anyone even pay attention to SCO anymore? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does anyone even pay attention to SCO anymore? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ummm, they said they are prepared to present examples in court.
So are you less suspicious now?
"It would be magnitudes easier for SCO devels to steal code from the Linux kernel (even unintentionally) than for the Linux kernel to steal code from SCO. "
SCO had a working relationship with IBM on the Monterey project. Obviously IBM then had access to SCO source. SCO is now claiming persons within IBM took said access to SCO source and used it in some Linux component.
"Anyhow, as some have already mentioned, who's to say that the code lines in question weren't already in the public domain prior to them even being in SCO?"
The Judge at the court hearing.
"I'm doubling-down on IBM if they want to play a chicken-and-the-egg fight in this suit."
I'll take a bet that IBM settles the case out of court.
Re:Does anyone even pay attention to SCO anymore? (Score:4, Interesting)
SCO's claims have to fit into a rather restricted time window to make any sense. Otherwise, it becomes more likely that the theft occured from Linux -> SCO.
Re:Does anyone even pay attention to SCO anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
! Save all registers.
push eax
push ebx
push ecx
push edx
jmp somewhere
"Hey, wow, we have that in our code too! And it's not just a minor copying, because they used the same comment!"
C and assembler have a much smaller vocab (orders of magnitude) than English, and accidental things like this go on in English all the time.
Also, they're comparing two unix-based kernels.. don't you think similar code would show up? After all, both are derived (either directly (SCO) or indirectly (Linux)) from the same original operating system (duh!).
Re:Does anyone even pay attention to SCO anymore? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, with SCO paying an undisclosed sum of money to IBM for SCO Unix infringing on IBM's intellectual property. IBM has patents on operating system methods coming out of their ears and it is almost impossible for SCO not to infringe upon it.
The only saving grace might be if SCO already licenses this technology from IBM, but IBM can still withdraw that license and screw SCO six ways from Sunday.
Re:Does anyone even pay attention to SCO anymore? (Score:5, Interesting)
If copied code has been there for a long time, the Caldera Linux includes them and this lawsuit will go absolutley nowhere, because SCO itself has authorized their use by distributing them under the terms of the GPL. One could simply go back to the GPL code released by Caldera, reapply all original patches since then and continue on without fear of reprisal.
I think the absolute worst outcome here is that a judge would order Linux to purge all copied code from its sources. There is very little chance of damages because any supposed infringement is at best unknowing by anyone besides the person who submitted the first infringing patch.
Re:Does anyone even pay attention to SCO anymore? (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I would be surprised if IBM didn't bury SCO with something on the order of 517 patents that SCO has been infringing on of theirs - I honestly think that the only reason it's taking IBM so long to formulate their response is that they have that many patents to check and make sure SCO is infringing that it could take a little while to enumerate them and write them down. But that's just me.
Re:Does anyone even pay attention to SCO anymore? (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless Caldera offers recipiants of its distribution of the linux kernel a GPL licence for the portions of its IP that are included, then Caldera's attempt to require a separate licence voids its GPL licence and means it has no licence to distribute linux, which means it is committing copyright infringement. Unlike Torvalds and other distos, SCO/Caldera is doing so knowing (if their claims are true) that they are distributing a combination of their own IP mixed with linux but not GPL'd as a whole.
Note that it makes no difference if they created the modification that produced the mixing. Just as they claim distributors of linux violate their copyright for distributing an improper mixture of GPL code and their non-GPL code, they too have distributed such a mixture. So if they are correct in their claims, the prove their own guilt and have commited knowning and willful copyright infringement for commercial gain.
Re:Does anyone even pay attention to SCO anymore? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does anyone even pay attention to SCO anymore? (Score:4, Informative)
I dont think you know a damn thing about "Linux" coding. what you seem confused about is weather a program is "Linux", the answer is NO. the only thing that is and has been "Linux" is the Kernel. And if you know that i would like you to explain to me how its "loose" in nature ? their is only ONE person who can "officially" approve code for use in "THE" kernel, and thats Linus. You can code a module, or even modify the hell out of the kernel, but thats not "Linux", "Linux" can only be found from one place: kernel.org, everything else is a modifyied version of it, and therefor the individual vendors are responsible for it. (hence redhat has an issue if a redhat kernel has SCO code in it, whereas the vanilla kernel wont.)
and i would challenge you to find ANY OS who only has one guy in charge of approving code/patches to the kernel.
Re:Does anyone even pay attention to SCO anymore? (Score:3, Insightful)
> Why would SCO cause themselves more difficulty by using a legal strategy that ultimately would cause them more harm then good? Most likely they have proof, or they wouldn't have said anything.
Yes, we all know that the plaintif always wins a lawsuit, because no one would be so foolish as to file a suit when they didn't have rock-solid proof in their briefcase.
> Hell, Stallman believes all code should be free. Why wouldn't one of his followers steal code given that philosophy?
A) Are Linux kernel
Every time I read... (Score:5, Funny)
I know what they are! (Score:5, Funny)
*/
Those lines are exact duplicates of orginal Unix code! Oh no! They've got us!
Re:I know what they are! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I know what they are! (Score:5, Funny)
The search is over... I now have the perfect excuse.
I thank you from the bottom of my heart, but my boss will probably hate you.
New option in make menuconfig. (Score:5, Funny)
If Y is selected, then copywrited code from unixware will be compiled into the kernel, if you have millions of $CURRENCY and would like to get SCO after you then say Y, most people would say N here.
Patch here [google.com]
Re:New option in make menuconfig. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:New option in make menuconfig. (Score:4, Informative)
Troll.
Ok, screw the lawyers... (Score:3, Funny)
Just wondering.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just wondering.... (Score:3, Informative)
In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Our world against theirs... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that a) they were looking for it and b) found it, leads me to suspect it might (assuming it exists at all) be SCO or someone at SCO.
That's the beauty of open-source. It's wide open, and well documented.
Re:Our world against theirs... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Licensing (Score:5, Insightful)
At the very least, this indemnifies *everyone* past the first rogue, and arguably makes it impossible for SCO to call the code back.
Reading the story (Score:4, Funny)
"The Linux community would have me publish it now, (so they can have it) laundered by the time we can get to a court hearing. That's not the way we're going to go."
Infidels!
So worst case, IBM DID do this (which I doubt), Linux suffers and BSD takes over!?!? Grreeeeeaaat, then we'll have to listen to a bunch of "Linux is dead" trolls. When will it end??? Either way, one thing is for certian:
SCO is dead.
Re:Reading the story (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually it is Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf [welovethei...nister.com]. Tariq Aziz was the deputy prime minister. Both were mouthpieces for Saddam's politcal machine, but Muhammed is much more fun to listen to. Check out all his quotes on the above website.
Re:Reading the story (Score:4, Funny)
AKA Comical Ali
Re:Reading the story (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Reading the story (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds a bit more like the statements from the US government.
1: Claim you have proof of IP theft
2: Refuse to show proof
3: Sue
4: ??buyout offer??
5: Pretend IP theft was a non-issue all along.
In other news, (Score:4, Funny)
destruction in the linux kernel code. The UN will
be assembling an inspection team shortly.
Re:In other news, (Score:5, Funny)
Confusion and delusion... (Score:4, Insightful)
Repeatedly over the past few days, they have provided a moving target as to what they they are claiming as thier IP. First it was IBM, then it was the OSS Linux community as a whole, and now they are saying it is the distros.
How typical. A bunch of dumbasses that could never have corperate direct now cannot even give thier litigation a sure direction for one day.
Note to SCO: Go back to drinking your Provo Girl beer, watching forest fires and making bad Linux distros. This is turing into a joke for you that you will NEVER recover come.
You will not own the community, you sure as hell won't IBM, and if I was IBM, I sure as would not want to purchase a company full of directionless assholes.
Give it up guys. All your linux are belong to us should not be anyone's mission statement.
"Lithuanian gutter weed or blunt from Portland...which do think the Blazers like?"
bah. (Score:3, Interesting)
Come on, everyone knows SCO is no longer innovating, but rather using lawyers to gain revenue... This reminds me of another company, Research in motion, recently renamed to Lawsuits in motion, as they no longer create new products, they just sue people for copying their generic designs...
I'll be real interested to find out what code IBM stole. Look! They push their stack parameters the same way during a task switch!!! OMG!
Re:bah. (Score:3, Insightful)
Everything SCO has ever done has been either something someone else did that they bought and put their name on, or something that someone else did that they found a way to mimic. I must apo
Even if this is true (Score:5, Insightful)
Since they are claiming Trade Secret status on the System V code, isn't failure to perform even basic attempts (such as contacting Linus) to minimise the impact of this leak enough to void the Trade Secret status of their code?
The more SCO speaks, the less credible this lawsuit sounds.
Re:Even if this is true (Score:5, Funny)
Or more to the point-- by distributing the offending products, they are consenting to grant rights to all of the code in question that is in any kernel that they distribute! So really only 2.5.x is vulnerable.
Basically SCO here has failed to adequately protect *anything* and one wonders whether the evidence is falsified. Or maybe the lines of code stolen are probably limited to:
#include
#include
#include
#include
"Due Diligence" (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't this true for SCO? They were supplying source code to companies like IBM. Apparently, according to their claim, they were also losing great amounts of revenue to Linux due to the unauthorized use of this code in Linux. It seems like they could have minimized the damage by doing a "diff" command between the Linux sourcecode (which was always available) and their own code and found out immediately that there was tainted code in there.
By being open source, it seems that Linux should be the most compliant OS out their because anyone with such claims as SCO should immediately be able to check the source. For them to wait this long to check (as they are losing over a BILLION dollars) seems to be a gross incompetence of SCO management. What else could contributors to Linux do to ensure the compliance of Linux wihout access to SCO's code? It seems that by being open source, the community has already done everything in its power to comply to IP law. SCO losses are a result of its failure to do its own part ($diff file1 file2).
Besides, the fall of SCO did not happen overnight, why must IBM take disproportionate responsbility (assuming they are at fault, which is unsubstantiated at this time) for what appears to be very poor efforts on the part SCO to protect their own IP (especially since they are also a Linux distr.!!!).
Also, if I were an investor I would be very upset. SCO has basically changed their business model without proper disclosure to the SEC. It is pretty well known that after they made their claim, it would be impossible for them to continue as a software company. Yet they seem to be continuing to waste money on new releases of Linux products that nobody will buy. What is the logic of releasing products for an OS that you are trying to slow the development of? What kind of business strategy is that?
Finally, the fact of SCO is a Linux distro is really ironic.
I mean, if even they are openly distributing their own IP through Linux under the GPL, what right to they have to sue other companies for doing the same!? If they couldn't even ensure that they were not dilluting their own IP themselves (with a simple "diff" command), how can they require other entities to do so?
I really believe that SCO has not put enough thought behind this and some of upper management is going to be directly liable to the stock holders for some blatant acts of poor judgement.
Re:"Due Diligence" (Score:3, Insightful)
None.
They don't even have the right to sue other companies for distributing SCO's own IP if they put it in. Releasing anything under the GPL (assuming you have the legal right to do so), is ensuring that it will be distributed.
I personally believe that SCO will being to adopt the concept that actual code may not have moved over, but concepts that t
And if you ask around... (Score:3, Interesting)
So, it's a fair trade!
The Stolen Code (Score:4, Funny)
for (i=0; i<256; i++) {
Dirty, stinking thieves!
Re:The Stolen Code (Score:5, Funny)
}
// Phew!
Re:The Stolen Code (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The Stolen Code (Score:5, Funny)
for (i=0; i 256; i++) {
Dirty, stinking thieves!
So that is how they found the code... there is a bug... "i" is probably a single byte variable...and it just overran its bounds by one! (the range should only be from 0 to 255, not 256)
Is it just me (Score:5, Insightful)
...or do the stock quotes at the bottom of the article provide the best commentary on this issue?
Re:Is it just me (Score:5, Informative)
Conspiracy Theory (Score:5, Interesting)
Adjust your tinfoil hat, people.
Re:Conspiracy Theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Hundreds of people have slipped in copyrighted code to the Linux kernel. The whole thing is copyrighted. But anyway ...
I have on several occasions seen junior programmers at proprietary software companies take code off the net or out of a textbook, and try to build it into a proprietary product (e.g. they need to do an FFT, so they get one out of "Numerical Algorithms in C"). This is because they have no clue about the difference between "the source code is published" and "it's public domain". Such codes get ripped out when found, or licenses are negotiated when it's too hard (at least at ethical companies),but it does happen.
The point is, it does happen that proprietary code contains illegally copied software, so SCO had better be careful what they allege.
Real Motives (Score:5, Insightful)
I love this quote:
> "The Linux community would have me publish it now, (so they can have it) laundered by the time we can get to a court hearing. That's not the way we're going to go."
So you don't want us to fix this so-called infringement? Most companies do a cease-and-decist before a lawsuit, allowing the accused to make changes. If this infringment HAS cost them a billion in damages, wouldn't you think they would want the infringement to stop right away? They could still make their case in court and use the same so-called evidence to show that previous infringment caused the damage, but not allowing the accused to fix the problem just shows that it's not the infringement they care about. It's just a means to getting money.
Re:Real Motives (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO can release this information now... if they want. The fact that they aren't releasing it immediately suggests that the violation (if true) isn't significant to their business.
It seems to me that they're just looking to make sure that this stays in the press for as long as possible. This is a fairly common business strategy.
After all, if they released the information, they know they'll have a few zillion people looking to prove them wrong. And if they're proven wrong, well, then they look incompetent. So it's better to lay low and let the press have a field day with it.
SCO have no clue about their own claims (Score:5, Interesting)
In this article, they clearly refer to the kernel: "We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code," McBride said in an interview" How do they possibly expect to win a lawsuit when they can't even agree amongst themselves about where the UnixWare code appears in GNU/Linux? And what the hell is "the periphery of the Linux kernel"? Modutils? Fileutils? Util-linux?
Re:SCO have no clue about their own claims (Score:3, Interesting)
There are two other possible explanations... (Score:5, Interesting)
This seems quite reminiscent of the USL v. U.C. Regents case over the BSD release. USL maintained that the BSD code was tainted, but never cited any specific lines of code. USL decided to settle after the U.C. regents pointed out that USL was in violation of the license terms for the BSD code they were using in System V. At that point, USL probably realized that U.C. could force them to withdraw System V from the market and recall all existing copies in order to strip out the BSD code. Anyhow, as part of the settlement, CSRG did remove a few files that were said to be tainted, but since USL didn't indicate which files to remove, CSRG picked out a few of the files that were crufty and in need of replacement anyhow, and removed those.
Does anyone remember the letter that SCO sent out to customers back in the late 1990s, suggesting that customers would be better off with a professionally written and maintained operating system, rather than an amateur effort by a few hackers? It has a lot of other ridiculous comparisons like that. Someone (ESR?) wrote a parody letter refuting every one of their points.
I used to have the two letters posted outside my cube at a previous place of employment. I just tried to find them using Google, but I must not be using the right search terms.
Re:There are two other possible explanations... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think Google works THAT well.
Re:There are two other possible explanations... (Score:5, Informative)
I believe you are talking about this [google.com] SCO letter and this [google.com] parody.
We know they have them! (Score:3, Funny)
"We have indisputable proof of their guilt! We are right, we have always been right! Details? Uh... we'll let you know later, we promise. Pinky swear."
Dirty hands (Score:3, Interesting)
This means that they have unclean hands, as they are supposed to try and mitigate the damage in order to receive compensation.
You can't knowlingly add to the damage and then ask for compensation incl Punitive damages based on same.
Any suit against Linux vendor in the future can site this as an Affirmative Defense" and pretty much get the suit tossed on that account alone.
Re:Dirty hands (Score:3, Insightful)
I totally agree with you, lots of errors on the IBM suit side and I hope you are right about personal liability for Officers, incl Insider issues based on stock transaction close to the suit being filed.
My point was a little different, This Error of not trying to mitigate the damages is pertinent to all future suits. If indeed there will be some.
Did you notice in the filing by IBM yesterday they was
Re:Dirty hands (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the cash position I agree with you but I don't think SCO has any intention of making it to trial. They wanted IBM to buy them out to avoid this. The problem for SCO is this is turning into good publicity (at least among techies) for IBM. Among n
Admins, please wait for evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Suggestion: Sue for LIBEL (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a blatant attempt to scare potential customers of the distros, and/or impugns the reputations of the distros and Linus.
Even if SCO decides to settle with IBM (i.e. get bought out or bribed), they have opened themselves up to a case of libel, unless they can back it up with examples and proof. Their CEO alluded to exact code duplication and semi-obfuscted replicas of code.
Ok, np, show the code in question, and then we'll check some verifiable (repeat VERIFIABLE) code submittal logs of Linux and SCO. If by some miracle their logs, show an earlier submission...then the lkml community would probably yank the code immediately, and probably improve on it just to make a point.
Second of all, by not coughing up the examples, there might be a case for "failure to mitigate damages". Basic speak for "You cant say I did something to hurt you, wait forever, then tell me what I did wrong to wrack up increased "economic damages", when you could have told me sooner, and I would have cleaned up the issue and reduced your potential losses further.
(IANAL^2)
You can't get blood from a stone (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason that SCO is pursuing this case in the first place is that they are doomed. They rely primarily on proprietary UNIX licenses (OpenServer and Unixware) for x86 hardware to survive and anyone with half a brain is making the easy migration from SCO UNIX to Linux. In the meantime SCO has to maintain not one but two proprietary UNIXes with a development team smaller than RedHat's, and they haven't even got a version of their software that runs on Itanium or Opteron processors. Not to mention the fact that they are already losing money with no relief in sight.
In short, SCO is screwed.
However, they realized that they could alleviate some of the hurting in the short run by running a FUD campaign against Linux. If they scare enough of their current customers into thinking that Linux has intellectual property problems then they might retain some key accounts for another round of upgrades. Some investors might even believe that they have a chance of making real money with their lawsuit, and this would give SCO managers a chance to cash in some of their SCO stock while it is still worth more than the paper it is printed on. That is what this circus is all about. SCO knows they aren't going to win. Heck, they aren't even *trying* to win. The whole thing is nothing more than an elaborate con job.
RedHat and friends could countersue for damages based on their ridiculous claims, but this isn't likely to make them any money. After all, if SCO had money they wouldn't be trying this stupid stunt in the first place.
What happens if they are right? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is messy, but then it gets even worse when you consider the notion of code forks, etc. What if Linus removes it, but for whatever reason a fork over at SUSE doesn't get removed? What if they don't bother, can SCO get a court order to force removal?
Re:What happens if they are right? (Score:3, Insightful)
But remember they are suing IBM. So what they really need to show (and what the lawsuit claims) is that IBM was the one who took the code and put it in the kernal not just some SCO developer. IBM doesn't distribute Linux. The lawsuite mentions there was code which IBM and SCO had join
Let's Just buy them out (Score:5, Funny)
And that as they say will be that.
Buy Him Out Boys! or What I hope IBM does 2 SCO (Score:3, Funny)
Bill Gates: Mr. Simpson?
Homer: You don't look so rich...
Bill Gates: Don't let the haircut fool you, I am exceedingly wealthy.
Homer: [quietly] Get a load of the bowl-job, Marge!
Bill Gates: Your Internet ad was brought to my attention, but I can't figure out what, if
anything, Compuglobalhypermeganet does, so rather than risk competing with you, I've decided simply to buy you out.
% Homer and Marge quietly discuss this proposal.
Homer: I reluctantly accept
Re:Let's Just buy them out (Score:5, Funny)
Hang on to that. In a few months, that may be all the money we need...
IANAL: Disclosure (Score:5, Insightful)
two points (Score:3, Insightful)
2. I would find it reasonable to believe that SCO put the code into the kernel itself as a poison pill (if indeed it exists there at all).
Re:three points (Score:5, Informative)
- SCO doesn't claim in its' filing that there is any SCO IP in the linux kernel, contrary to what McBride says
- SCO does claim in its' filing that certain compatability libraries that allow UnixWare binaries to run under linux are their IP.
- None of the current distros has a copy of any of these libraries.
- McBride should read his own companys' suit before giving interviews, but then he would be open to charges of "pump and dump" vis his SCO stock (not that ignorance is a defence, but
...)
This whole thing is so fucked up that it can only be a stock-market scam.Here it is (Score:5, Funny)
Don't they get it? (Score:5, Insightful)
A situation like this arose in a couple assignments in computer science courses I've taken. This one professor I had, who was super anal and also did not understand this principle, accused myself and some of my peers of copying each others' code. His evidence for our "cheating" was that our programs all had some almost identical code save for variable names and some functions. Now, the kids I was accused of helping to cheat or cheating off of were people I had never before interacted with until we found ourselves in the prof's office. However, the professor had done the usual thing of teaching basics, here's some algorithms, here's how you do this, here's how you do that... and because some algorithms are so intuitively implimented, the product can look the same. I mean cripes, how do you expect every student to do mutexes or handle deadlock in completely unique ways? Some things have one correct way or being done!
We explained this to him numerous times, but it seemed with every assignment, different segments of the class were being accused of cheating. Unfortunately for some, they were not able to properly explain this phenomenon.
Either SCO is really dumb or they fully expect the judge to not understand it either.
SCO Linux was GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
At least the kernel was released under the GPL.
I would like to see how they explain that IBM GPL release of code is much more damaging then their own release, under the GPL, of that same code.
The fact that SCO has licenced others to redistribute this code under the GPL should make it pretty hard to get damages for others doing the same.
If their code is secret... (Score:3, Interesting)
[Clarification: I am posting it at the danger of being attacked, but my puny brain cannot comprehend it as it is. Please help.]
If their code is secret, it means they could put whatever they want in there now and claim that it was there from the very beginning. Who knows when that particular piece of code was placed there. 20 years ago? Yesterday? Or just before they go to court to present the evidence?
I am not saying that they are lying, but how can one be sure. If there are ways to make sure that it is, please enlighten us.
Thank you.
GrimReality
2003-05-02 20:25:51 UTC (2003-05-02 16:25:51 EDT)
Charges of code "laundering?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, admitting that anything is possible, I must ask, is McBride insane? Here is how to "clean" the code out of the Linux kernel:
Step 1: Log into kernel.org.
Step 2: Remove or patch the offending code in every version of the kernel ever posted to that site.
Step 3: Run complete tests on every patched kernel to make sure it builds and runs on all supported architectures.
Step 4: Contact RedHat, SCO (Caldera), IBM, debian.org, Suse, Slackware, and anyone who has ever distributed a Linux kernel and have them do the same.
Step 5: Contact every Linux user in the world and have them patch their kernels.
Laundering, indeed. I predict that this evidence will turn out to be shit.
Who can we trust? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a good reason software should not be considered "published", hence copyrightable, unless the source code exists in some human-readable means in some organization outside of the "software publisher" (who truly publishes nothing), a place the courts could seriously look at as proof of the existance.
A way that might serve as a valid stopgap would be the generation of an MD5 hash of each source file and submitting that to some trusted agency (Library of congress?) for another digital signature and timestamp to be added, proving the date of creation to some legal standard so that these allegations could be backed with proof. We'd know the plaintext was validly signed by the LOC and that it existed at the time alleged to.
Re:Who can we trust? (Score:3, Insightful)
First is the one that people have already pointed out: The released binary is a de facto checksum of the source code. If the code compiles to be identical to the binaries they released years ago, then the source is unchanged.
Then there's the fact that SCO did release the source code--to companies (like IBM) willing to pay for a license and sign an NDA. There are several copies of it floating around out there.
Then there's the question of honesty. It's one t
isn't this a dupe? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have the line os code SCO is sueing about!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Does this remind anyone of the /. april fools? (Score:3, Interesting)
Since MS Windows is closed source, isn't it possible that there's GPL code in there that they're using illegally? What should we do about this?
Of course, everyone responded that the questioner was an idiot,
Maybe SCO didn't get the joke either. Can anyone find a link to that article? I tried
SCO GOTCHA (Score:3, Interesting)
The question is not how much has Linux stolen (Score:3, Informative)
Their entire suit may be based on header files in Linux which conform to SYSVR4 specifications. To an untrained reviewer, this may indeed look like infringement.
Fortunately, there's plenty of legal precedence about header files, conforming to specifications, etc. which should make short work of this claim.
Anyway, down to business...
SCO customers in New York! would you like to move away from a sinking ship and regain control of your systems? Looking to develop a Linux strategy? We can help [netgraft.com].
My apologies (Score:3, Funny)
FUCK SCO AND THE HORSE THEY RODE IN ON.
Re:Dirty thieves (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure there are hundreds of others who've had their code "liberated" without their consent.
Are you saying you've liberated someone else's code for an open source project? I know I have not, and I've not seen any evidence of this having been done in the Linux kernel.
Where's the evidence?
Re:Dirty thieves (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dirty thieves (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dirty thieves (Score:3, Interesting)
Mod this troll down. (Score:3, Insightful)
He is obvious trolling with quotes like:
Moderators who moderated this up: Get a clue.
Re:Dirty thieves (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're talking command line and server apps then I disagree.
Apache isn't a clone of IIS.
MySQL isn't a clone of Oracle, SQL Server.
Sendmail isn't a clone of Exchange server.
OpenOffice is and isn't a clone of MS Office, it provides similar features but uses XML for its file format, something that Microsoft have chickened out of using.
Anyway, you can run things like GIMP on Windows if you want. Withou
Den of Dirty Thieves at SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
I find this statement has more merit than anything from SCO. Corporate driven programming is much different from Open Source. With OSS, there's really no pressure to get stuff done and out the door, or at least far less than in the corporate world. This idea is based on Linus's many comments about when such and such release will be shipped : "when it's done".
Now contrast that with UnixWare version whatever, with a crackpot like McBride at the helm whipping up the team to get the code out the door. You can imagine the chaos: see the Mythical Man Month about OS/360, and I believe there's a book about Dave Cutler's team at M$. This is not Extreme Programming, it's the death march.
To conclude, which programmer is more likely to grab some peice of code that just works?
Here's another point: From my experience, OSS code is revised and rewritten constantly. Look at Ingo's work with the scheduler, or the recent work by several folks on the VM. Or Apache Xerces (XML4J). I've been using that for a few years, since it had jp (originally written by some IBMers at one of IBM's Japan labs I think), and that has been rewritten from scratch at least once. One last example - Mozilla was rewritten entirely, sidelining it for several years. That was a questionable move, but I say they did a good job - Mozilla is awesome.
Again contrast that with corporate software - how often do you rewrite working code from scratch? You do if business rules change, but I'd argue that with corporate software (think COBOL) it's more if it ain't broke don't fix it. Case in point: at the organization I work at, we have a database (well, more of a filesystem) written in assembler that is basically 25 year old code. Why? It works, it is very fast, it runs mission-critical systems, and it's very hard to modify, let alone maintain it. (Yes it is being replaced, so they say).
So, Unix code in Linux, copied line by line? Doubtful, I side with Perens.
To conclude, Perens has a good point. But as can be seen by the Sun/Netscape vs. Microsoft lawsuit, anything can happen in the courts. They'll have fun figuring out the "obfuscated" code.
Re:Dirty thieves (Score:4, Insightful)
It is completely legal to write your own software. It's completely legal to use the same metaphors when solving the same problems. It's even legal to "clone" an interface when such interoperatibility is a high user requirement. Can you imagine the chaos if every vendor had to come up with new names and flags for programs like ls(1), cc(1), find(1), etc.
What's illegal is copying code without permission. That's not cloning, and the results can't be copylefted since the punitive author doesn't have the right to release the code.
And as for the idea that all OS implementations are just ripped off from commercial products, have you actually looked at the quality of commercial code lately? Haven't you heard of company after company after company switching to Linux and open tools after realizing that they were regularly spending 20% or so of their time fixing files corrupted when the app or system crashed, cleaning up after viruses, cleaning up the mess left by bundled malware, etc.? Even if some mad Microsoft employee sneaked out with the source for Word or Outlook and ported it to Linux, a lot of us would still keep far away from it because of the profound flaws in the applications.
Re:Dirty thieves (Score:3, Informative)
and then you'll know.
Maybe i've been trolled, but maybe i've helped a newbie.
The Numbers refer to the original MAN PAGES books 1 to 8. Try Xman on any ***X machine.
Re:Is this the end? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCO should sue M$. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Will be sooner than later. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Will be sooner than later. (Score:5, Informative)
Can someone spread some light on how they'd prove how old their code is?
In this day and age, there's no such thing as proof. There are ways (both low and high tech) to falsify almost any piece of evidence. Thankfully, the court system is already set up to handle this.
From what I understand, in most trials there are issues of fact (he did this to them at this time) and issue of law (and because of that he should be convicted of this charge). Early in the process, SCO is supposed to file documents asserting (among other things) the facts as they understand them. IBM is supposed to reply with (among other things) the facts as they understand them, including pointing out where the agree (eg. IBM stipulates that the plaintiff is, in fact, called the Santa Cruz Organization, Inc), and where they disagree (eg. IBM at no point transmitted any part of foo.c to persons outside the company).
If they disagree on significant factual issues (and don't settle, and IBM doesn't eat SCO to make the headache go away), then the case will eventually end up in a trial by jury. The jury's main job is to listen to both sides evidence regarding the facts of the case, and decide whose evidence is more convincing.
If there's no dispute on the facts, juries can be dispensed with, and a judge can just decide how the law applies. You get fun things like Summary Judgements as in the Grokster case if everyone's on the same page as far as facts go.
If SCO produces a falsified source document from 1998 with GPL code pasted in, IBM can rebut with a witness from IBM showing that in 1998 they received a different document, including the SCO (Novell?) branded CD and the matching checksums from the printed and dated documentation. They could also add a witness from a third company showing that in 1998 they received a different document too. I don't think a jury will have a hard time deciding relative merits of such evidence.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, the above should not be considered to be legal advice. Some states may permit Judges to determine issues of fact and not require a Jury for that under some circumstances.
Re:Will be sooner than later. (Score:3, Interesting)
-Hope
Re:Did SCO violate the GPL? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why are you looking at me like that, Scully?
Mox
Re:Did SCO violate the GPL? (Score:4, Interesting)
internal documents alone wont win this case. the funny thing is that even if SCO has a winnable case they are not going to win against IBM. IBM can just drag this case out forever until SCO runs out of money. kinda scary that the RIAA's legal plan can be used for something good eh ?