SCO Lists Specific Code-Infringement Claims 780
mugnyte writes "Those tireless folks at groklaw have transcribed and published the documents from the latest IBM/SCO hearing. In it, the exact lines of the supposed Dynix / AIX / Linux logic are given. SCO claimed that Linux's read copy update, journaling file system, enterprise volume management system, AIO (Asynchronous I/O), and "scatter gather" I/O code had been derived from either AIX or Dynix/ptx. Now we can take a look at what SCO thinks makes Linux an enterprise-ready platform started at 2.4, stealing away their market share. However, IBM released these things under the GPL ... so what license did IBM really have from SCO to do this? Which raises the question, What license did SCO have from Novell to disallow this?"
I don't think Novell ever gave them that right (Score:5, Interesting)
Dammit! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dammit! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dammit! (Score:5, Funny)
Took them long enough... (Score:5, Funny)
Postal Fraud (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Postal Fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
Postal fraud requires intent. Your going to have to prove that SCO knowingly and intentionally attempted to defraud those 1500 recipients. I don't beleive that's the case, and you'll have a very difficult time PROVING it.
I think SCO beleives their claims (at least at the higher levels). I beleive that they THINK that they own this code and that the Linux kernel infringes on it. All of that is HEAVILY debatable, quite possibly laughable.. but attempting to enforce your perceived IP rights is not postal fraud. It's stupid, it's a waste of time, but it's not illegal.
Re:Postal Fraud (Score:5, Interesting)
At any rate its a grey area. It looks like extortion but they probably could get around that charge by saying that they didn't actually take anyone's money. It looks like slander but no one has proved in court that it doesn't infringe. And as was stated postal fraud is also hard to prove. I just hope some no-nonsense judge really slaps them hard for this one.
Re:Postal Fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
Good luck making that stick. As long as they show that they THOUGHT they were right, then they're clear. But I don't think they would have to, I would think it would be the up to the complainants to show that they DIDN'T think they were right. Have fun with that.
Re:Postal Fraud (Score:5, Informative)
SCO is already in trouble in Germany and New Zealand for such things. In Germany, they're under an injunction not to send demand letters to Linux users, and in New Zealand, the Commerce Commission is looking into SCO's activities. "A person or a company falsely claiming to have ownership of a product or service or the rights to payment could breach the Fair Trading Act", says the spokesperson for the New Zealand Commerce Commission. There are also unconfirmed reports of investigations by the authorities in Australia and by the US Federal Trade Commission.
SCO's "sue and threaten everybody" strategy is backfiring.
No, actually (Score:5, Interesting)
Some research turned up that it is ilelgal to send someone a bill for something they don't owe. So, if this license thing declared that a company owed them money for Linux, that would probably qualify.
Re:No, actually (Score:5, Insightful)
And did anything come of it? Or was it just a very interesting item, as in just what they needed to fill up that empty part of the filing cabinet?
Re:Postal Fraud (Score:5, Funny)
I got mine in email from their headquarters in Nigeria.
SCO needs to do better homework (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers [nccomp.com]
Re:SCO needs to do better homework (Score:5, Funny)
The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers [nccomp.com]
Re:SCO needs to do better homework (off topic) (Score:5, Interesting)
As a Genuine University Professor, who has seen a lot of cheating
Petty cheating persists because it is expensive to prosecute. Think about it. In the university setting, for example, faculty are rewarded for bringing dollars and fame --- not for upholding academic standards among their students. If I catch someone cheating on an exam, it is my fervent hope that they will readily admit it, because if they don't, I have to weigh the cost of spending perhaps 40 man-hours (my own time, and others) to deal with an isolated case of petty cheating --- by someone who is almost certainly headed for a dismal grade anyway. People who cheat in class do not get good grades! Seriously! There are steps one can take to make cheating very difficult. For example, if my classes are small enough (under 24 students or so), I try to have an oral final exam. Anyone who can cheat during a one-on-one oral exam, well, they have a very special gift indeed. But I need at least a half hour for each exam, and there is no putting that work off on TA-slaves.
I have run into "malicious" cheaters, but such behavior is very rare --- at least among university students (engineers). Now, it may very well be that CEOs of modern corporations are cut from a different cloth --- Larry Ellison, for example, seems to be the very avatar of acquisitiveness --- but most people are pretty good. And flawed --- sort of like Zoyd Wheeler, in Pynchon's "Vineland."
It's fun to beat up on people who find themselves, through a moment of weakness, in a terrible fix. We have often not bothered to understand their circumstances, nor acknowledge our own role in their predicament. Ronald Reagan, for example, liked to blow hard about the Welfare Queen, a terrible creature which exists in about the same measure as Grendel.
For another example, consider the American Taliban, John Walker [msn.com]. He's a pretty fat target for abuse; but is it so surprising to the nerds of slashdot that someone might do the things that Walker did? And then when someone like Steve Earle writes a sympathetic song about Walker, the derision is turned up to 11. (try this google [google.com]; most of the entries are either parodies or negative criticism, poisonous "patriotism" or other nonsense.)
If the real case of Walker makes you uneasy, how about the great supernerd John Hackworth in Neal Stephenson's magnificent "The Diamond Age." Hackworth wanted nothing more than to raise his daughter well; he "cheated," got caught in one lie, tried to cover it up, and wound up spectacularly entangled in a series of punishments that lasted over a decade.
So, anyway. It's fun to beat up on SCO, and McBride. One of the differences between most people who read
So, pay attention to the interesting analysis performed by Groklaw-folk, but mod yourself down if you're merely going to hurl abuse at Darl and SCO. This is a tragedy unfolding; a very human tragedy.
Computerworld article seems to have this sorted ou (Score:5, Informative)
1) AT&T licenses SysV to IBM and Sequent
2) IBM writes a bunch of cool enterprise level stuff for their flavor of SysV, and acquires Sequent
3) AT&T writes a letter to their newsletter ($echo) saying their license doesn't cover the derivative stuff, just the basic system
3) IBM eventually kicks their stuff into Linux
6) SCO buys up all the old licenses
7) SCO says the work is derivative after all, and they ownzors it
At some point the chewbacca defense starts to look a lot more rational.
Re:Computerworld article seems to have this sorted (Score:5, Funny)
Judge Moses: Mr. Johnny Cochrane, your closing argument.
Johnny Cochrane: Ladies and Gentlemen of this deposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe his client wrote Stinky Britches ten years ago, and they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself. But Ladies and Gentlemen of this deposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider.
[Walks up to a chart stand]
Johnny Cochrane: Ladies and Gentlemen, (Pulls down picture of Chewbacca) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wooky from the planet Kishic, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense.
Gerald (Whispering): Dammit.
Chef (Whispering): What?
Gerald (Whispering): He's using the Chewbacca defense.
Johnny Cochrane: Why would a Wooky, an eight-foot-tall Wooky, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense. But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case.
[Jury stares in silence]
Johnny Cochrane: Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case.
[Gerald sinks back and covers his eyes]
Johnny Cochrane: It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I'm am not making any sense. None of this makes sense. And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this deposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit. The defense rests.
[Silence]
Judge Moses: OK then.
SCO complains that IBM tricked them (Score:5, Interesting)
So, they are complaining, in part, that IBM tricked them: "They made secret plans, and didn't tell us!"
Re:SCO complains that IBM tricked them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SCO complains that IBM tricked them (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SCO complains that IBM tricked them (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM released the PowerPC Haifa scheduler for egcs (now gcc) more than a year before Project Monterey began (Aug. 1997 vs. Dec. 1998). I think they were involved in at least the Linux compiler effort since... oh, maybe 1995 or '96.
RCU and the System V Question (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with SCO's reasoning is that the RCU code is completely separate from System V. It doesn't contain any System V code at all. As such, it isn't a derivative work. Despite this, SCO is claiming that any code at all that IBM or Sequent developed for their respective System V derivatives (AIX and Dynix/ptx) is either owned by SCO or is to be treated under the same terms as the System V source code itself.
It's actually kind of ironic, considering that SCO has been claiming all this time that the GPL is bad because it's "viral." It sounds to me that the System V licensing agreement, as construed by SCO, is far worse! However, given the side letter AT&T issued to IBM in 1985 telling IBM that IBM's own non-derivative source code belonged to, well, IBM, I doubt SCO's claims will bear up in court.
Re:RCU and the System V Question (Score:5, Funny)
print("Hello");
Then K&R came along, added some headers, an 'f' to "print", wrapped it in a main() function and added " World." They called their version "Hello World."
Consequently, I own all rights to all C programs, since they are all derived from "Hello World" which is derived from my "Hello" program. Everyone using anything written in C can pay me $699.00 now, or $2000.00 sometime after I extend the original discounted price 3 to 27 times.
I expect to be invoicing you all real soon now. Or you can avoid the rush and just reply here with your credit card information.
Thank you for your business.
Excellent quote about the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually kind of ironic, considering that SCO has been claiming all this time that the GPL is bad because it's "viral." It sounds to me that the System V licensing agreement, as construed by SCO, is far worse!
An excellent point, and worth re-reading.
Weaselmancer
Re:RCU and the System V Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway: hogwash. If I have the copyright, I can distribute.
Unless you've entered into a contract and committed not to distribute it, which is what SCO is claiming IBM did. Of course, SCO's legal theory reminds me a lot of this cartoon [sciencecartoonsplus.com].
Can SCO sue for past damages? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is all fine, but I want to know if SCO can still sue for past damages? E.g. the time span that those unlicensed codes were being abused?
P.S. This is just a question based on the worst case scenario.
An analysis (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:An analysis (Score:5, Insightful)
1) When Novell gave SCO in effect the exclusive license for Unix, there were clauses to protect Novell's existing licensees (for example, IBM) from SCO changing the licensing agreement.
2) Regarding the question about IBM and other licensees owning derivative works, the answer is no. AT&T sent out a docment specifically stating this.
Check out http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040210
Re:An analysis (Score:5, Informative)
-Ted
Re:An analysis (Score:5, Interesting)
But that doesn't say it's wrong, either, merely that it isn't binding. If you want to know why I'm particularly skeptical about it, here's a cool test for you. Run down to Novell's site, and troll through the documents they ever so helpfully put up there. Look for the magical "last sentence added to section 2.01". Tell me if you find it, because I didn't. I looked for it, because that was the first piece of evidence that Novell had ever presented which in any way called into question SCO's claim to ownership. I find no references to it except in the pdf that was sent to SCO to intimidate them.
I think that Novell is playing the same kind of game for PR the SCO is. I don't trust them, and I don't believe that their contract says what they would like you to believe it says. Otherwise, it would ahve leaked, and it has not done so.
readv/writev (Score:5, Insightful)
Now it's not clear if they're claiming it's the implementation that's infringing (it's not exactly a hard function to code), or the interface.
If it's the latter, they're clearly in the wrong since that interface dates back to 4.2 BSD. Much of their evidence seems rather circuitous, relying on things like individual contributors having worked on Dynix in the past. Also, for relatively simple stuff, there's only one optimal algorithm, so unless they can demonstrate things like identical variable names (above a certain length), they don't have a case (in an ideal world..).
I am pretty well convinced... (Score:5, Interesting)
It could almost be seen as a courageous effort if it wasn't so fucktastically stupid.
I'll bet a SCO sitewide license that Darl is starting to regret having ever shown up for this little legal soiree.
Re:I am pretty well convinced... (Score:5, Funny)
fucktastically stupid
That my friend, is the phrase of the day. You win 10,000 SCO Linux runtime licenses... head over to kernel.org to claim your prize!
Can't be both, which is a lie (Score:5, Interesting)
Here they make specific claims in reference to the same settlement.
Which is the truth, and which is evidence of perjury?
Utah Haiku (Score:5, Funny)
Stolen IP to the Court
Court Laughs Hard; Craps Pants.
misleading text (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO's case does not hinge on proving that AIX/Dynix code appears in Linux.
SCO's case hinges on proving that IBM does not own the code it contributed. Which, according to the terms of the UNIX license from AT&T, IBM does have full ownership rights to derivative works.
SCO is deliberately misinterpreting a clause in the original agreement and spinning it as hard as possible.
Previous owners of UNIX rights have clarified the terms to be more in the UNIX licensee's favor in subsequent communications as well. It would be madness for a judge to overlook all of this if they did decide the clause was vague and needed to speculate on the spirit of the agreement.
The million dollar question here is what the hell is David Boies doing backing these con artists? Not having an answer to that question is the only thing stopping me from shorting SCO's stock.
Re:misleading text (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure he is. He has yet to appear in court on their behalf. His firm is being paid a great deal of money, win or lose.. my guess is that by contract they have to see this suit to the bitter end. I suspect they signed that contract without knowing both sides of the story. I doubt David Boies personally has any intention of polluting his reputation further with this case. When Kevin (Darl's brother) appeared in court instead of Boies, that was a possible indication that Boies wants to distance himself as much as he can from this case. Darl can't find anyone but his brother (and a couple other well paid,win or lose lawyers) to buy into his crackpot theories on "IP".
a surprise still coming? (Score:5, Interesting)
That is no surprise to anyone in the IT community.
*BUT*
It is no surprise to SCO__either__. That is why they kept their mouths shut for so long about their evidence ( lack of )
SCO knew this going into the scheme.
The interesting surprise to come is to see how the players from SCO are going to get out of being punished.
They had to see this coming.
In the bush era of no penalties for Worldcom or Enron execs Daryl may be laughing at all of us a few months from now.
Linux may be fully vindicated by then, but maybe so will he/his buddies be......and with the money they made off of this nonsense.
Steve
Re:a surprise still coming? (Score:5, Interesting)
In a land where even Poindexter was not tried for treason and even ended up with another plum job, Darl is safe.
Re:a surprise still coming? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure where you get your information, but Andrew Fastow (Enron CFO) and his wife are going to jail. Jeff Skilling (Enron CEO) will likely be charged this week. You can check here [cnn.com].
You may also be shocked to notice that the crimes in question took place between 1996 and February 2001. Now, who was the President during those years? [whitehouse.gov]
Now, if you want to complain about how the Bush administration messed up the Microsoft case, I with you, brother.
SCO = BSFMM (Score:5, Interesting)
Says it all (Score:5, Funny)
Be careful! (Score:5, Informative)
This publicly available Caldera documentation could contain items including but not limited to proprietary, unpublished SCO code, copyrights, trade secrets, and/or patents!
I did some checking (Score:5, Informative)
Unixware has never achieved a substantial market share
Another quote [cc.ca.us], again no mention of _copyrights_
X/Open introduces the UNIX 95 branding programme. Novell sells UnixWare business to SCO
nwfusion [nwfusion.com] makes this interesting distinction:
1992 - Purchases rights to AT&T UNIX
1995 - Sells Unixware to Santa Cruz Operation
WTF is 2.4 1-01 ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:WTF is 2.4 1-01 ? (Score:5, Informative)
Looking at the patch, IBM is listed as the copyright holder. The code also acknowledges that it is based on the Dynix implementation.
Randomly chosen lines... (Score:5, Funny)
init/main.c [asu.edu] (Tab 18) 30-33
30
31 #include <asm/io.h>
32 #include <asm/bugs.h>
33
But ofcourse..
SCO loses Autozone, that is 6,000 sites (Score:5, Informative)
Target has *within the last month* told SCO to go pound sand and done a deal with IBM for Linux conversion. I'm not sure how many locations they have - does anyone have that info handy? Please post if you do.
Sherwin Williams I know less about than either of the other two but IBM has helped SCO to the door there, too.
I hope Darl & company get prosecuted but I feel bad for the SCO troops - this is exactly the same behavior (pump & dump) I saw with the auto parts supplier where I worked in the mid nineties. I wrote a perl script that calculated severance for 4,000 employees and the scumbag behind the whole scheme went right into something much nicer than unemployment and vocational training:
http://www.corporateexpress.com/Mark_Hoffman.ht
To recap (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM's license reiterates that IBM owns their contributions, and is perpetual and irrevocable.
Novell backs up IBM's claims, and offers proof that SCO does not own UNIX.
There was no written transfer of copyrights from Novell to SCO. SCO (old SCO, not Caldera/SCO) bought the UNIX business, not the UNIX copyrights.
SCO failed under a court order to identify any code of "theirs" in Linux that IBM didn't write.
They did identify hundreds of lines in Linux that IBM wrote, and own, far short of the millions of lines of UNIX code they claim were illegally copied in violation of SCO's copyrights.
SCO does not even have a copy of the "derivative" AIX source code they claim to own.
SCO has violated thousands of copyrights and broken many laws.
SCO still offered the code in question under the GPL far into the discpute, and it's even digitally signed with their key.
Etc. Groklaw explains it all.
There are also "shared library" claims (Score:5, Insightful)
Upon information and belief, AutoZone's new Linux based software implemented by IBM featured SCO's shared libraries which had been stripped out of SCO's UNIX based OpenServer by IBM and embedded inside AutoZone's Linux implementation in order to continue to allow the continued operation of AutoZone's legacy applications. The basis for SCO's belief is the precision and efficiency with which the migration to Linux occurred, which suggests the use of shared libraries to run legacy applications on Linux. Among other things, this was a breach of the AutoZone OpenServer License Agreement for use of SCO software beyond the scope of the license.
Hmm, evidence seems a little thin there, actually "suspicion" would be a better word that evidence. Personally, I think SCO is just blowing hot air once again, and that IBM will simply show that and code conversions done in their contract work were done without the help of shared libraries owned by SCO, or if the customer did continue using them, that they had every right to. This should be rather cut and dried has nothing to do with SCO's ownership claims in Linux. It's just another amusing sideshow brought to us courtesy of the clowns at SCO.
The central point of this filing of course is SCO's rejection as "overly broad and unduly burdensome" IBM's question about what specific source code in Linux they think they own rights too. If their goal is to obtain a mistrial by causing the judge to burst an artery laughing, they just might do it
SCO: Code of Mass Infringement will be found (Score:5, Funny)
"We will find this code of Mass Infringement," A SCO spokesperson said. "They've got to be hiding the code somewhere. It's just a matter of time before we find it."
Last year SCO Group waged war against the Open Source Community claiming that it had Code of Mass Infringement.
Plenty of other "open" choices if Linux looses... (Score:5, Funny)
FreeBSD
OpenBSD
NetBSD
Darwin
FreeDos
Windows 2000
Windows NT
The Chewbacca Defense... (Score:5, Funny)
Wrong question... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is entirely the wrong question. IBM wrote the code. IBM owns the code. IBM contributed the code. SCO is *claiming* that doing so violates some contract IBM has with them. The burden of proof lies on them. The question is NOT what "licence" IBM has from SCO to release their own stuff under the GPL. (you don't need a "license" to do what you please with stuff you wrote yourself.) The question is, what evidence does SCO have that IBM is, infact, violating some agreement with them by doing as it does.
stock scam reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
Top mutual funds with [bad] holdings of SCOX:
Bjurman, Barry Micro-Cap Growth Fund
ING Inv Tr-Ing/Capital Guardian Small Cap Port
Royce Technology Value Fund
Oberweis Micro-Cap Portfolio
Top SCO institutional stock holders:
Capital Guardian Trust Company
Royce & Associates, Inc.
Integral Capital Management Vi, LLC
Bjurman, Barry & Associates
Empire Capital Partners LP
Vanguard Group, Inc. (The)
In the two months, it appears two more large scale insider stock dumps have been perpetrated (in addition to the previous months HUGE insider stock dumps):
VP GASPARRO, LARRY 5,259 shares
Director RAIMONDI, THOMAS P., JR. 11,841 shares (exercised option @$1.12/share - nice dump) $210,000 pocket change!
Most obnoxious co-conspirator to the stock scam:
Deutsche Securities - issuing an analyst recommendation "buy" on SCOX - they are probably also helping to launder money that's feeding the SCO legal campaign I bet.
Or maybe Howard Dean... (Score:5, Funny)
And then odbcinst.h, random.h, utime.h, umsdos_fs.h! And reboot.h, reiserfs_fs.h, irda.h, and errno.h!!!
All the way to the kernel source code!
Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Re:What we need is Al Sharpton to clear this up... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What we need is Al Sharpton to clear this up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, just wanted to clarify that some people lie to GENERATE conflict.
Re:What we need is Al Sharpton to clear this up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What we need is Al Sharpton to clear this up... (Score:5, Funny)
What about people who tell the truth? Why do they do that?
Re:What we need is Al Sharpton to clear this up... (Score:5, Funny)
They couldn't think up a lie quick enough.
Re:What we need is Al Sharpton to clear this up... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What we need is Al Sharpton to clear this up... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not possible to lie without knowing it. A lie is a knowingly untruthful statement made with the intent of deceiving.
So ... if Darl is an unconcious liar, perhaps it is because somebody just hit him on the head with a clue-stick? Or perhaps he just got side-swiped by SCOX's falling share price?
Re:What we need is Al Sharpton to clear this up... (Score:5, Insightful)
comes with the territory. (Score:5, Interesting)
The further up you go in an organization more you lie every day. If you are aprogrammer you might only have to lie once or twice a week.
If you are promoted then you find yourself lying more often because you have to lie both to your bosses and your underlings.
As you go up you may find yourself lying a dozen times a day just to get through.
I imagine a CEO pretty much lies constantly. I bet they don't even know the difference between a truth and a lie anymore.
Re:comes with the territory. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:comes with the territory. (Score:5, Insightful)
What a load of crap. Sounds like you work for SCO.
Most of the people I've worked with -- the vast majority, above and below me, including presidents, vice-presidents, general managers, directors, managers, and individual contributors, across 10 or more companies I've worked at -- were ethical. There have been some exceptions, but they number at most a half dozen over my 20+ years in the software business.
Re:comes with the territory. (Score:5, Funny)
No, they were just good at lying.
Re:comes with the territory. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:comes with the territory. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I have worked with people who routinely lie and are incredibly dishonest. They've often gotten ahead. The worst are those who are self righteous...which leads them into an even deeper level of deception.
However, in most cases these political drones have cost the companies I worked for tens of millions of dollars. I worked with one company that can point to a pile of dead bodies caused by a self righteous business drone who falsified reports. He went to jail. I hope he is still there.
Anyway, most people who produce quality work tend to be honest and hard working. The US used to have a very strong competitive edge because Americans used to have better ethics.
BTW, not disclosing information you know is not a lie, unless it is in a circumstance where you are expected to disclose the information. For example, my not posting the source code for my employer's product is not a lie. Not telling a customer the percent of commission on a sale is not a lie either.
A CEO should know the quarterly sales figure several days before the quarterly report. His refusal to tell people this figure is not only not a lie, the CEO would be in big legal trouble for disclosing the information early.
A good part of good business is developing channels so that the information is released in a sane and informative manner.
This garbage mindset where we try to turn good business practice into a call for machiavellian maneuvering is absurd. Unfortunately, the poor logical education that we get in the US has our president seeing WMD where there are none, and is lowering our defenses against the political wolves who continually run US businesses down.
Re:comes with the territory. (Score:5, Insightful)
did you ever come in late and lied about it? Did you ever lie to get off work early one day? Did you ever lie to a co-worker?
Of course you did. You just don't see the lies as being harmful so you do it. You probably lie every day at least once if not a dozen times. They may be small lies but they are lies anyway.
As you go up in an organization lies get bigger and bigger and yet people still don't see it as harmful so they do it. They of course also do it to save their assess, to make themselves look better or to make other people look bad, or maybe just to shift the blame from themselves. The dog ate my homework I swear!.
It's a fact of life. Everybody lies every day. CIOs and politicians lie thousand times a day and about bigger things.
Re:comes with the territory. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, come on. How often do you write comments or documentation?
Linux 2.6 infringement free?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Linux 2.6 infringement free?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Linux 2.6 infringement free?? (Score:5, Informative)
SCO Waiting for 2.6.0 before submitting this? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't help but wondering that they wanted to wait until 2.6 was out, thereby ensuring that one more generation of the kernel would be guaranteed to be "tainted". The article was full of references to 2.6.0.
2.6.0 is now in freeze mode and it will be really hard to remove all the lines that SCO alleges are infringement. Had they released this while 2.6 still was 2.5, the community could (at least in theory) have done a halt in development and spend some time on removing these lines.
Even if these lines of code really aren't infringement SCO can argue that they are. If they were removed, they can't even argue that.
SCOs ability to extort large amounts of money is greatly decreased if all people had to do was to upgrade the kernel to 2.6.0 to be out of the woods.
Re:SCO Waiting for 2.6.0 before submitting this? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know where you got that idea. Remember when the entire VM was replaced [linuxworld.com] in the midst of a stable kernel?
Re:SCO Waiting for 2.6.0 before submitting this? (Score:5, Interesting)
My understanding is "removing these lines" actually means replacing them with something functionally equivalent. If it's functionally equivalent, then it doesn't really matter if it's done between 2.5.98 and 2.5.99, or between 2.6.3 and 2.6.4.
Or am I missing something?
Don tinfoil hat (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great time for a party... (Score:5, Insightful)
The kernel hackers should not even think about changi anything until these lawsuits are resolved..
Why give your enemy more ammunition? He'll just come back and attack you again...
Re:Great time for a party... (Score:5, Interesting)
p = br->port_list;
You damned linux hippies, stealing that highly critical line has ruined SCO's business!
http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/bridge/br_stp.c#L4
No need for the party I guess.
Re:Great time for a party... (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM should put together some diff scripts and take a selection of random works from the last 1000 years or two.
I'm sure with even with minimal translation they could come up with some extremely popular pieces of literature that have the same %-age of similar sentances as SCO has shown exist in their code comparisons.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if there was a great deal of literature that shows a much higher percentage of alikeness(?). Maybe it would also help show a non-technical courtroom the actual (non)-importance and lack of proof that finding a few thousand matching lines (minus header files) out of millions truly is, especially when the subjects are extremely similar (ie, a similar interface to a specific subset of hardware) written in the same language(s), by people trained by a similar school of thought and experience (covers learning by example).
Darnit, I used the letter 'i' as a counter in a loop, descriptive variable names, and half a million other things I learned from C better sue me for copying your code....even if I haven't written C in years...
Re:Great time for a party... (Score:5, Insightful)
The phrases..
- press any key
- turn to page....
etc. etc. spring to mind.
How DO I file a lawsuit....
Re:Great time for a party... (Score:5, Funny)
Without further ado...
Let me start by saying...
Right in the middle of all the...
Billions and billions of...
Great works of literature...
You will find enclosed...
A lot in common...
On the other hand...
If this pack of...
Litigious bastards...
Manage to pull a miracle...
They might turn the world upside down...
And hit the jackpot...
While hell freezes over...
Re:Great time for a party... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great time for a party... (Score:5, Funny)
Replacing lines (Score:5, Insightful)
code. The court directed SCO to provide to IBM what
IBM requested in discovery and one item, the main
item, were lines of code from original Unix that are
in Linux by means of IBM. SCO only responded with
code not in original UNIX, but programs wholely
written by (at the time) Sequent and IBM. SCO's
contention is that since they touched UNIX they are
UNIX is a *##&*$&)$#@
+++ATH
OK
Re:So now we have it (Score:5, Informative)
Bull. Not even SCO is claiming it's their code (IANAL, but I'm fairly sure about that). They're claiming that it's IBM's code, but the terms of IBM's UNIX license agreement didn't allow them to release it under GPL.
Re:So now we have it (Score:5, Insightful)
If the GPL author can demand that an entire codebase be opened upon the inclusion of even a small amount of GPL'd code, then SCO is well within their rights to demand the same in their licenses and expect the same adherence from the licensee.
Nonsense. The GPL is an affirmative grant of expanded copyright privileges. If I create some code and incorporate some GPL'ed stuff into it, it is not the case that my code is suddenly tainted and becomes GPL'ed. It's just that if I distribute the combined work under terms incompatible with the GPL, I am illegally distributing that (GPL'ed) portion of the combined work whose copyright does not belong to me. GPL'ing my own software is NOT mandatory.. neither the FSF nor Linus Torvalds, no anyone else has the right to force me to GPL my code. But they can stop me from distributing _their_ code.. and if my code is totally useless without that GPL'ed software, well, too bad.
The AT&T contract that SCO is basing their entire case on (although they've been screaming bloody murder to distract people from this fact in the press) states that derived works shall be treated in similar fashion to AT&T's unmodified works for the purposes of the IBM/Sequent/SGI contracts. That is, you can't modify AT&T's code and then give it away.
That says nothing about RCU or JFS or XFS, which are original code created by IBM and SGI, respectively. That code is not derivative of AT&T's code merely because it was commingled into AIX and IRIX. AT&T/Novell/SCO/Caldera/SCOX did not have anything to do with the creation of RCU, JFS, or XFS. SCO is making a very persuasive case that RCU, JFS, and XFS were contributed to Linux by IBM and SGI, here. And that's great. But they haven't shown in the slightest degree that, against all common sense or case law, IBM and SGI's original works become 'derivative' of AT&T's code because they were at one point commingled into a product that contained AT&T code.
The GPL doesn't work that way. The AT&T license didn't work that way, judging from AT&T's own comments in the 1985 $echo newsletter cited at GROKLAW. And you know what? Copyright doesn't work that way, either.
IANALTG.
Re:So now we have it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So now we have it (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention that the JFS code was originally written for OS/2 before it was ported to AIX.
originally written for OS/2 (Score:5, Funny)
Note to Daryl: Sue the OS/2 users too.
Re:originally written for OS/2 (Score:5, Funny)
What? Both of them?
Re:This is like the browser war (Score:5, Funny)
Not entirely accurate.
IN fact: SCO has spent too much time shooting blanks.
And like the committing any other crime, eventually someone in charge is going to realize you're only shooting blanks and will send in the SWAT Team/Shock Troops/Storm Troopers and blow you into surprisingly insignificant pieces with extreme prejudice.
I propose that after the dust settles some enterprising young folks should pick up pieces of the rubble and sell them on eBay for a suitably ludicrous amount.
Perhaps a momument should be erected to their eternal overconfidence and supreme stupidity, complete with a Wall Of Imbecility detailing the most choice of Quotes from Darl McBride-of-Satan and his PR Flacks/Legal Vultures.
From an interview with PJ (Score:5, Informative)
[...]
My thought then was to try to explain legal news stories as they came along. I was forever reading
[...]
I didn't think too many people would ever read it, except I thought maybe IBM might find my research and it'd help them. Or someone out there would read it and realize he or she had meaningful evidence and would contact IBM or FSF. I know material I have put up can help them, if they didn't already know about it. "
So in short, yes.
Dude. (Score:5, Funny)
Who utterly failed to grasp meter,
And didn't have time
To understand rhyme --
So even the FPs were 1337er!
Re:I Have to Ask (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Correct use of "steal"! (Score:5, Informative)
Let's look at this a little closer, with help from dictionary.com:Illegally copying a work does not involve capturing it physically (since the physical object need never leave possession of the rightful owner), confiscating it (again, because it is not removed from the owner), or killing, snaring or trapping (because it's not a friggin' squirrel). So to steal, you have to take, and to take, you have to physically remove something from the owner.
Let's start with the fact that "stolen" IP is almost never in the possession of the "owner" when it it "stolen." Generally, someone copies it not directly from the owner, but from a legal license holder. Therefore, even if it does involve physically removing the item (and, under right of first sale, if you *do* physically remove the item from the previous owner, you are specifically *not* infringing on copyright), you did not remove it from the "owner" as defined by copyright law.
It is possible to steal a CD from your roommate, but that is not copyright infringement. It is possible to infringe on copyright by copying a CD your roommate owns, but that is not stealing. It is possible to steal the CD from your roommate and copy it and pass it out to all your friends, in which case you've both stolen and infringed, but you haven't even done them to the same person. This is why the difference is important: stealing involves possession of a physical object. Copyright infringement does not. Therefore, they have to be defined differently, and so the law makes a distinction.
Re:How about... (Score:5, Funny)