Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Operating Systems Software Unix News

SCO Claims Kernel Contains UnixWare Code 606

Posted by michael from the put-up-or-shut-up dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Claims Kernel Contains UnixWare Code More

SCO Claims Kernel Contains UnixWare Code

Comments Filter:

  • Does anyone even pay attention to SCO anymore? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ahkbarr ( 259594 ) * on Friday May 02, 2003 @03:57PM (#5864478)
    As already stated on LKML here [iu.edu], it's far more likely that they saw something that had been stolen from Linux or other GNU code in SCO, and thought is was the other way around.

    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)

      by molarmass192 ( 608071 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:21PM (#5864754) Homepage Journal
      Exactly, the fact they aren't prepared to even present a single example of this makes me very suspicious. 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. 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? I'm doubling-down on IBM if they want to play a chicken-and-the-egg fight in this suit.

      • Re:Does anyone even pay attention to SCO anymore? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by sheldon ( 2322 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @05:17PM (#5865262)
        "Exactly, the fact they aren't prepared to even present a single example of this makes me very suspicious."

        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)

          by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @05:28PM (#5865350) Homepage
          The problem with the SCO claim is that they make it sound like these "infractions" date back to before the time when IBM was making contributions to the kernel. That obviously raises the question of: If IBM wasn't inserting SCO code into the kernel, who else could have?

          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.
          • Or, maybe it's something like:
            ! 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)

          by Guy Smiley ( 9219 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @06:42PM (#5865814)
          I'll take a bet that IBM settles the case out of court.

          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)

        by bwt ( 68845 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @05:50PM (#5865512)

        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.
    • I also wonder if the code in question was actually BSD or public domain code that both SCO and Linux adopted.

  • Every time I read... (Score:5, Funny)

    by BgJonson79 ( 129962 ) <srsmith @ a l u m .wpi.edu> on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:00PM (#5864506)
    about the Sco vs. IBM suit, I can't help but think that SCO is going to be worse off than Mike Tyson's cellmate when all is said and done.

  • I know what they are! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Garion911 ( 10618 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:01PM (#5864516) Homepage
    And they are repeated many many times! /*

    */

    Those lines are exact duplicates of orginal Unix code! Oh no! They've got us!

  • New option in make menuconfig. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:02PM (#5864525)
    [*] SCO lawsuit support (EXPERIMENTAL) (NEW)

    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]

  • Ok, screw the lawyers... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Howard Beale ( 92386 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:02PM (#5864526)
    SCO's up against the wall first!

  • Just wondering.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:04PM (#5864541)
    If in case SCO clamis are true... would the linux kernel itself, as it stand become non-gpl'ed? After all if some GPL code makes its way its something else... its is GPLed... seems kinda fair to me.

    • Re:Just wondering.... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No, because they've specifically stated they're not referring to official (kernel.org) kernel code.

  • In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by intermodal ( 534361 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:04PM (#5864544) Homepage Journal
    SCO is back at it, begging IBM to buy and assimilate them...

  • Our world against theirs... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <yoda AT etoyoc DOT com> on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:04PM (#5864546) Homepage Journal
    Well if the "Smoking Code" is ever revealed, we can always trace back through the patches to discover who the guilty part is (assuming there is one.)

    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.

  • Reading the story (Score:4, Funny)

    by rutledjw ( 447990 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:04PM (#5864558) Homepage
    These guys (SCO) sound like they hired the old Information Minister from Iraq - whats-his-face Aziz...

    "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.

  • In other news, (Score:4, Funny)

    by Sevn ( 12012 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:05PM (#5864562) Homepage Journal
    SCO is claiming they have found weapons of mass
    destruction in the linux kernel code. The UN will
    be assembling an inspection team shortly.

  • Confusion and delusion... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BubbaTheBarbarian ( 316027 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:05PM (#5864566) Journal
    One would think that SCO has enough version control to know what they have, when they got it and where it came from. That would be assuming alot with them though.

    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)

    by Quasar1999 ( 520073 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:05PM (#5864570) Journal
    Why are we wasting valuable time? Couldn't this time be better spent innovating? If Microsoft gets wind of this method of screwing opensource, there will be no more innovation.

    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)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )
      I'm sorry, did you say SCO is no longer innovating? They've never innovated. Any interesting IP they've ever owned they got from someone else, witness how Unixware's kernel is superior to SCO Open Server in all ways. Xenix was the only SCO product which was ever really cool in its time, and they got that from Microsoft!

      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)

    by Gleef ( 86 ) * on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:05PM (#5864572) Homepage
    Even if this is true, shouldn't they have contacted Linus and had him remove the offending code? I'm sure he would have.

    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.
    • Even if this is true, shouldn't they have contacted Linus and had him remove the offending code? I'm sure he would have.

      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)

      by Idou ( 572394 ) * on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:23PM (#5864773) Journal
      If I recall correctly, companies must make an effort to minimize their damages under all circumstances if they want to be able to collect compensation for damages. For instance, if I am IBM, and my supplier of screws never delivers me my shipment of screws for my mainframes, I am responsible to find another supplier. I can't wait a year and not ship any mainframes and then try to collect damages of Billions of dollars of lost revenue. Such a claim would be absurd since I didn't do anything to minimize my damages.
      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)

        by bazmonkey ( 555276 )
        ...even they are openly distributing their own IP through Linux under the GPL, what right do (sp.) they have to sue other companies for doing the same!?

        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 alot of former SCO employees, there are many rumors of Linux code in the SCO kernel!

    So, it's a fair trade!

  • The Stolen Code (Score:4, Funny)

    by Wanker ( 17907 ) * on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:05PM (#5864579)
    I bet this is the stolen code:

    for (i=0; i<256; i++) {

    Dirty, stinking thieves!

  • Is it just me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by leviramsey ( 248057 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:06PM (#5864582) Journal

    ...or do the stock quotes at the bottom of the article provide the best commentary on this issue?

    Caldera (SCOX): 3.60, -0.09

    IBM (IBM): 87.21, +1.32
    Red Hat (RHAT): 6.13, +0.16

    • Re:Is it just me (Score:5, Informative)

      by Galvatron ( 115029 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:09PM (#5866291)
      Actually, Caldera has approximately tripled since announcing this lawsuit. The one day loss was a blip. That being said, the only reason it's gone up is that otherwise, the company had no prospects at all. This at least is a shot in the dark.

  • Conspiracy Theory (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pixel_bc ( 265009 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:06PM (#5864586)
    Wouldn't it be interesting if someone managed to slip in copyrighted code intentionally, with the knowledge that it would eventually be found -- causing quite a bit of damage to the Linux movement...

    Adjust your tinfoil hat, people.

    • Re:Conspiracy Theory (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JoeBuck ( 7947 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @06:13PM (#5865655) Homepage

      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)

    by hendridm ( 302246 ) * on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:07PM (#5864596) Homepage

    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)

      by standards ( 461431 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:27PM (#5864816)
      Falacy. Past infringement is still infringement.

      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)

    by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:08PM (#5864615) Journal
    Over on Mozillaquest.com, SCO/Caldera states that there is no SCO code in the kernel itself: "Chris Sontag: We're not talking about the Linux kernel that Linus and others have helped develop. We're talking about what's on the periphery of the Linux kernel. "

    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?

    • If it's code from IBM, which supposedly infringes on their "advanced technolgies" (among which they list a bunch of shit which cannot possibly be applicable, but one item of which is a filesystem) then I can only assume it is in the volume manager or in the utils for jfs.

  • There are two other possible explanations... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eric Smith ( 4379 ) * on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:08PM (#5864618) Homepage Journal
    There are two other possible explanations for why some code might be similar or identical:
    1. Small chunks of code may result from multiple programmers solving the same problem. I've seen this firsthand, when a company accused me of stealing code from one of their embedded systems. I sent the company copies of the development snapshots of that piece of code from my open-source program, documenting its evolution, and the company was satisfied that I'd independently developed my code.
    2. It's possible that the code was copied, but not by Linux. Can SCO prove that their developers weren't influenced by Linux code? Of course, if they can document when the code in question was written, it would be fairly easy to compare that to the Linux history, which is very well documented.

    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.

  • We know they have them! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Glytch ( 4881 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:09PM (#5864629)
    So, SCO's taking lessons from the Bush junta, eh?

    "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)

    by bstadil ( 7110 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:10PM (#5864639) Homepage
    Not telling the world what the code is, is a legal blunder of the first order.

    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.

  • Admins, please wait for evidence (Score:5, Insightful)

    by realdpk ( 116490 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:13PM (#5864657) Homepage Journal
    This story has been posted about probably a dozen times now without any evidence included. Do you suppose you could hold off on posting new stories until either the evidence is made available or the suit is dismissed/won/settled? As it is now we're just seeing the same responses posted over and over again.

  • Suggestion: Sue for LIBEL (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cmehta1 ( 88375 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:13PM (#5864658)
    I think RH, UnitedLinux(minus SCO, of course), any other commercialized distro, and Linus should sue SCO when they make claims that Linux source code is contaminated with their intellectual property.

    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)

      by Jason Earl ( 1894 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @05:18PM (#5865286) Homepage Journal

      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)

    by sterno ( 16320 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:14PM (#5864674) Homepage
    Let's assume for the moment that some IBM engineer took some code from SCO and added it to Linux. What is the consequence for the Linux kernel and other distros who did not intend to violate their copyright? I'm assuming that the GPL would cause all the legal liability to fall on the shoulders of the people who added the code, but then somebody still has to go and scour that code out of the kernel right?

    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?
    • Claiming to have copyright of something you don't is a felony. So the devleoper in question is in deep kaka. As for Linux SCO is going to have to prove intent (which they won't be able to) so I can't see them not winning.

      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)

    by BigGar' ( 411008 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:14PM (#5864676) Homepage
    Let's set up a fund to collect money from open source users to use for the sole purpose of buying SCO stock. We'll collect enough to just buy the damn company release all IP into the GPL that we own.

    And that as they say will be that.

  • IANAL: Disclosure (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HaeMaker ( 221642 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:15PM (#5864681) Homepage
    Thy HAVE to disclose it prior to trial. They will have to give it to IBM. IBM can then find the author and determine the truth.

  • two points (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MORTAR_COMBAT! ( 589963 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:17PM (#5864709)
    1. I would find it hard to believe that SCO can prove that IBM put such code into the kernel (if indeed it exists there at all).
    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)

      by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara.hudsonNO@SPAMbarbara-hudson.com> on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:39PM (#5864935) Journal
      uh, people, if you've been following this story over the last few months, just a few points:
      1. SCO doesn't claim in its' filing that there is any SCO IP in the linux kernel, contrary to what McBride says
      2. SCO does claim in its' filing that certain compatability libraries that allow UnixWare binaries to run under linux are their IP.
      3. None of the current distros has a copy of any of these libraries.
      4. 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)

    by r_j_prahad ( 309298 ) <r_j_prahad@@@hotmail...com> on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:25PM (#5864792)
    /* Drunk. Fix later. (Dennis R) */

  • Don't they get it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jerk City Troll ( 661616 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:26PM (#5864798) Homepage
    What SCO clearly do not understand and what the judge hopefully will, is that there are many common algorithms that when implemented, may have identical code. For example, if you were to have 100 coders, all with similar education, and told them to impliment Bubble Sort, I'd bet you'd venture afterwards that 70-80 of them plagerized somebody's code. While I cannot begin to speculate what kind of algorithms were implimented in code SCO claims was stolen, there's a very strong chance the similarities are coinincidence.

    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)

    by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:29PM (#5864831) Homepage
    SCO released a linux distribution.
    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)

    by GrimReality ( 634168 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:31PM (#5864857) Homepage Journal

    [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)

    by 47PHA60 ( 444748 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:34PM (#5864877) Journal
    "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."

    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)

    by dark-br ( 473115 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:45PM (#5864986) Homepage
    This allegation really underscores a primary issue of closed source software - it's not out for public review, and hence, it would be VERY difficult to validate these claims. For all we know, SCO's code is a rip-off of Linux or some prior open-source code that Linux was a beneficiary of. SCO never published their source and there's nothing outside of SCO (or maybe IBM, if there was some kind of agreement) to validate the claims. The trouble is, we can trust neither of those parties to present untainted copies of the relevant code as both could have altered timestamps or copied in code. There's also the fact that some processes in software can just really be done in one optimum way.

    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.
    • Interesting point, but many issues are left open.

      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)

    by MobyTurbo ( 537363 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:46PM (#5864995)
    I know I'll get modded down for this, but the hot link in this story and the previous story on the subject are identical except for a positioning flag... I'm surprised nobody else has noticed.
  • Here's the code:
    /*
    'SCO suxs.'
    Copyright SCO Slogan Department 1994
    All Right Reserved

    */
  • Way back in the day (1999?), slashdot ran one of its most successful april fools stories. It was an ask slashdot:

    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, /. was biased, blah blah blah.

    Maybe SCO didn't get the joke either. Can anyone find a link to that article? I tried /.'s find feature and google to no avail.

  • SCO GOTCHA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by azoidx ( 615249 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:56PM (#5865073)
    from a great article http://www.corante.com/openmind/20030501.shtml "Finally, there's another gotcha as far as this suit goes. SCO is claiming that IBM, Red Hat and SuSE are somehow violating SCO's IP with code that they're shipping with their Linux offerings. If this is true, is SCO shipping it as well? Under the terms of the GNU General Public License, even if IBM and the rest are shipping stuff wrongly (which, again, I very strongly doubt), once it makes it out the door in SCO's Linux offerings as GPL'ed code then the company as the legitimate copyright holder (if they are) has given carte blanche to the rest of the world to use that code. From the GPL, section 6: Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. It would seem to me that one quick way to debunk SCO's claims would be to examine the source from SCO Linux and the source from what IBM is shipping. If, in fact, there are no significant differences (and I suspect there are not) then SCO has no leg to stand on. "

  • The question is not how much has Linux stolen (Score:3, Informative)

    by defile ( 1059 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @05:08PM (#5865199) Homepage Journal

    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].

Slashdot Top Deals

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -- Albert Einstein

Close