SGI's Letter to the Linux Community 565
_Upsilon_ writes "SGI has released a letter to the Linux community in response to SCO's recent threat to revoke the UNIX licence for Irix. The letter mentions that they inadvertently did submit some System V code into the Linux kernel, that has since been removed (and some more in the process of being removed). The article points out that the code fragments in question had already been released into the public domain as well."
Don't /. these guys (Score:3, Informative)
To the Linux Community:
As one of many contributors to the Open Source movement and to Linux,
SGI takes the subject of intellectual property rights seriously. Our
contributions are a valuable expression of ideas which contribute to
the intellectual richness of Linux.
Over the past four years, SGI has released over a million lines of code
under an open source license. Throughout, we have carried out a
rigorous internal process to ensure that all software contributed by
SGI represents code we are legally entitled to release as open source.
When a question was raised by the community earlier in the summer about
the ate_utils.c routine, we took immediate action to address it. We
quickly and carefully re-reviewed our contributions to open source, and
found brief fragments of code matching System V code in three generic
routines (ate_utils.c, the atoi function and systeminfo.h header file),
all within the I/O infrastructure support for SGI's platform. The three
code fragments had been inadvertently included and in fact were
redundant from the start. We found better replacements providing the
same functionality already available in the Linux kernel. All
together, these three small code fragments comprised no more than 200
lines out of the more than one million lines of our overall
contributions to Linux. Notably, it appears that most or all of the
System V code fragments we found had previously been placed in the
public domain, meaning it is very doubtful that the SCO Group has any
proprietary claim to these code fragments in any case.
As a precaution, we promptly removed the code fragments from SGIs Linux
website and distributed customer patches, and released patches to the
2.4 and 2.5 kernels on June 30 and July 3 to replace these routines and
make other fixes to the SGI infrastructure code that were already in
progress at SGI. Our changes showed up in the 2.5 kernel within a few
weeks of our submission, and the 2.4 changes were available in the
production version of the 2.4 kernel as of August 25 when the 2.4.22
kernel was released. Thus, the code in question has been completely
removed.
Following this occurrence, we continued our investigation to determine
whether any other code in the Linux kernel was even conceivably
implicated. As a result of that exhaustive investigation, SGI has
discovered a few additional code segments (similar in nature to the
segments referred to above and trivial in amount) that may arguably be
related to UNIX code. We are in the process of removing and replacing
these segments.
SCO's references to XFS are completely misplaced. XFS is an innovative
SGI- created work. It is not a derivative work of System V in any
sense, and SGI has full rights to license it to whomever we choose and
to contribute it to open source. It may be that SCO is taking the
position that merely because XFS is also distributed along with IRIX it
is somehow subject to the System V license. But if so, this is an
absurd position, with no basis either in the license or in common
sense. In fact, our UNIX license clearly provides that SGI retains
ownership and all rights as to all code that was not part of AT&Ts UNIX
System V.
I hope this answers some of the questions that you and the Linux
community might have. We continue to release new Linux work, and are
very excited about the growth and acceptance of Linux. We are
continuing full speed to do new work and release new Linux products.
We take our responsibility to the open source community seriously and
are confident that we have an effective process to verify the quality
and integrity of our contributions to Linux.
Rich Altmaier
VP of Software, SGI
richa@sgi.com
Re:Don't /. these guys (Score:4, Interesting)
"Following this occurrence, we continued our investigation to determine whether any other code in the Linux kernel was even conceivably implicated. As a result of that exhaustive investigation, SGI has discovered a few additional code segments (similar in nature to the segments referred to above and trivial in amount) that may arguably be related to UNIX code. We are in the process of removing and replacing these segments."
It would be nice if they (IBM, SGI) ran the ENTIRE Linux/GPL code base through a tokenized comparison with their reference SCO Unix trees. Thus GPL community could start identifying and removing any suspect code NOW, rather than wait for a trial outcome.
Re:Moderators: Karma Whore (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't /. these guys (Score:5, Funny)
Whore? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, now there's an idea!
A new class of hated Slashdot readers: evil Karma Thieves who post an article as an Anonymous Coward, thus depriving all the good, honest, hard-working Karma Whores of their cheap-ass mod points.
Re:Don't /. these guys (Score:3, Interesting)
And according to SGI, it's questionable whether any of the code even got compiled. It seems like it was old code left in the source, but not even called upon at compilation.
Uh-oh... (Score:3, Interesting)
oh, man.
Re:Uh-oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh-oh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting something in the Public Domain specifically means you are giving up any copyright to it. NO ONE owns the Copyright for Public Domain works, thus, anyone can use it for any reason whatsoever. Microsoft can use it, you can use it, Saddam Hussan can use, all legally, and no one has any authority to limit how you use it.
The GPL relies on Copyright, and is very unrelated to PD. If you never have read it, go to www.gnu.org and read the GPL. It is very much like any other software license in a legal sense, only the terms are different. Its an interesting read. GPL does NOT mean you can do what you want with it. If you change GPL software, sell or give away a modified binary but refuse to show me the source, you are infringing the copyright, for instance, and subject to getting your butt sued by the owner of the copyright.
This (Score:4, Insightful)
but McBride whining about the simple fact that the code was there now has some merit to it"
The fact the code was there gives him no merit at all. What I see here is the linux community plus SGI being absolutely vehement in removing copyright violations from linux the instant that it's even hinted they might be there. This seems to place SCO wholly at fault since it is thus their fault the infringing code continues to be in linux, by virtue of the fact they refuse to tell anyone what that infringing code is. The legal doctrine of due dilligence means a court will likely see it the same way.
Re:This (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right. The fact that SCO did nothing to mitigate their supposed 'damages' from supposed infringing code puts them at the back of the bus.
In another world, SCO would be undergoing wiretaps, subpoenas, and other assorted FTC-SEC investigation activities for criminal fraud. McBride et. al belong in jail.
Re:Uh-oh... (Score:2)
Re:Uh-oh... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh dear, if ranting makes a point void, the /. community is voiding an awful lot of points :)
Re:Uh-oh... (Score:5, Informative)
This is very different from an inadvertant violation. If you took me to court and I could present evidence that I did not include your code purposefully, that I removed the offending code as soon as I knew about it and presented documentation that the code was public domain, but that I thought it would be better to remove any possibility of violation, chances are that would be the end of it. The court would see that I performed due diligence to detect and fix the problem.
That is why Linus and others keep on challenging SCO to show them the code so that they can perform their legal obligation and remove it. These people have also said that the fact that SCO won't show the code probably indicates that there are no violations, and certainly not on the grand, purposful scale SCO alleges. Look, if somone walked into your place of work and said "you are running unlicensed software," they'd be right. I have never seen a business that was NOT running unlicensed software. Does that mean they did it on purpose to destroy the maker of that software?
Re:you are so wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
US courts, in addition to seeing the actual negligence or malice involved, will also look at the actual damage caused. If SCO claims damages because code that they themselves released to the public under an unrestricted license was used in a program, they'll be asked t
Irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
The mere fact that code is the same between two sources is useless without being able to prove if either was original. As has been shown repeatedly, either SCO doesn't know or thought no one else would remember about the whole AT&T vs. BSD deally.
And in any case, SGI has already proven how easy it would have been to address the issue if SCO had identified any code they actually had rights to - yet another fact that would hurt SCO in a copyright lawsuit.
Re:Uh-oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
In the likely event SCO actually sues SGI, SGI can not only defend their code, they can also point out that any necessary corrective actions have already been put in place if SCO has any merit. This wil
Re:Uh-oh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I'll make it easy for you. Here's by far the most important part of the letter:
"Notably, it appears that most or all of the System V code fragments we found had previously been placed in the public domain, meaning it is very doubtful that the SCO Group has any proprietary claim to these code fragments in any case."
IOW, the letter can be summarised to, "We don't think we've infringed on [SCO's] copyright as this was BSD code, but it was that easy to replace that we've done it anyway."
Re:Uh-oh... (Score:5, Insightful)
SGI carfully verified its code base before releasing it under an open source licence. Most of it was code that was completely original to SGI. However it included a few excedingly common routines that have been around forever, have been release as public domain, published in textbooks and distibuted in BSD software for decades. There is no legal justification for anyone owning this code. We figured that the ATT case was the nail in the coffin of this issue and didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to try to claim ownership of this code again. But unfortunately, we were wrong and these morons think that just because SysV uses these extremely common routines that they must own them. To make things easier for everyone, we are have removed this code, and are looking for any other code that will give these idiots bad ideas, and will remove it as well. We appologise for underestimating the extreme stupidity capable of businessmen and layers.
Re:Uh-oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh-oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, what it does is refute SCO's claim that there are over 1 million lines of code that infringe on their IP. SGI makes it sound like, at most, 200 lines infringe, most of which has been removed an
Re:Uh-oh... (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO's claim of one million lines of infringing code sounds kinda like them saying "well, we know that SGI contributed some lines of code that are just like our System V code, so therefore, all lines that they contributed must be."
IANAL so I have to ask: If, for instance, a book has a paragraph that was lifted from another author, does that make the entire book an IP v
Re:Also. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Once upon a time"
and SGI is saying ok, we had been using "Once upon a time" but since SCO says they own it, we will replace it with "Long ago and far away", because we know that is public domain. We are pretty sure that "Once upon a time" is too, but we don't want to fight about it.
Re:Uh-oh... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't have to trust either one. SGI's claims are verifiable. They submitted patches to remove any offending (in their opinion) code. We can look at those patches and see what they entail.
Is there any more infringing code? Maybe. But if so then SCO needs to point out what that is, don't they? In the end, the truth will come out.
Re:Uh-oh... (Score:3, Funny)
They probably could have added a hearty "K
Re:Uh-oh... (Score:3)
Re:Uh-oh... (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps there is already a freely-available atoi(3) implementation that can be used by the Kernel? Yes, in fact there is! Even better, it coincides with the atoi(3) function that was removed! Woohoo! We are saved! There is not even eny need to look further afield, like the multitude of *other* free implementations around the place (say, glibc? BSD?), or (at last resort) actually finding a master C programmer to lock himself in a room for the long winter months in an effort to come up with an independent implementation.
The funniest thing is, that it probably WOULD take a huge effort by a master programmer to actually find an implementation of atoi(3) that was truely independent
Re:Won't destroy Sun (Score:4, Funny)
What IS this anti-Sun thing on Slashdot??
Slashdot is populated by nerds that live in caves of steel, surrounded by nifty little electronic gadgets that never actually get used for their intended purpose. Slashdotters hate the sun because it hurts their eyes and tans their skin, but mostly they hate the sun because there are other people out there.
This is also on (Score:5, Informative)
wow.. owned. (Score:5, Insightful)
The post script got cut off (Score:3, Funny)
Sound familiar? (Score:4, Insightful)
So that's where it came from!! (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand, this also confirms that SCO is spouting non-sense and has no legal basis for its suits, since:
I predict SCO is therefore going to be squashed by IBM, SGI, Red Hat etc. Good riddance.
Re:So that's where it came from!! (Score:3, Insightful)
I predict SCO is therefore going to be squashed by IBM, SGI, Red Hat etc.
My worst fears about the SCO case is not wether SCO will legally win a single dollar from someone, there is no chance in hell that will happend.
No, my biggest fear is the SCO will somehow manage to slip away, at the last moment, from the much spectacular death they are running full-speed towards, and they will somehow manage to survive and hide in a small hole somewhere.
Re:So that's where it came from!! (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't worry about that too much simply because they do not have a business model. Even if they came out tomorrow and said, "never mind" they still have no method of earning money. If they don't have the lawsuits, they don't have the reason to extort money from Sun, MS, HP
Re:So that's where it came from!! (Score:3, Insightful)
IMMATERIAL. You cannot just "take back" code and say everything is OK.
However, under copyright law, normal legal practices, and their license agreements, SCO is obliged to attempt to deal with things without litigation, get the code removed, find a mutually acceptable solution. They have made no such good-faith efforts, whatsoever.
2) That code may well have been in the public domain anyway.
MAY HAVE BEEN, according to SGI. However they were
Re:So that's where it came from!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk about confused. You are mixing up two parties here.
1. SCO hasn't litigated against SGI yet.
2. They are asking me for license fees, not SGI. But I have no liability.
Mutually acceptable to who? What parties does "mutually acceptable" refer to?
Re:So that's where it came from!! (Score:5, Insightful)
SGI has demonstrated that any copyright violation was inadvertent and that any such copied code was insignificant within the larger work, as it was so easily removed.
Moreover, they've shown good faith by making every effort to mitigate the damages, even though SCO has shown no such willingness (by refusing to identify the infringing code).
As a result, SCO would be unlikely to get anything more than actual damages, which would be small. And, if the infringing code was removed before SCO obtained its copyright registration (which you'll recall was quite late in the game), they probably wouldn't even get that.
Re:So that's where it came from!! (Score:3, Informative)
That's not right. Any copyright holder is always entitled to actual damages in a copyright suit, whether the copyright is registered or not. You're correct that in this case the actual damages would likely be quite small, since the amo
SCO Reply (Score:5, Funny)
Either way... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Either way... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Either way... (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess its all a matter of perspective, but SGI didn't find any code I'm aware of that they had to remove. They didn't find any code that was infringing anyone's copyright. What they found was code SCO thinks is infringing, but they think is not. The fact that its easier to remove it than argue about it doesn't change that fact.
Re:Either way... (Score:3, Interesting)
what damage? I found that this whole thing has actually helped linux. CTO's, managers and other are finally asking questions about this "linux thing". These are the same people that completely understand the IP rights mindset and know that SCO is up to no good when the whole thing is explained to them... I.E. "Example? ok, I think that your company ZXY corperation is violating my property rights in your product.. No you can't see what is in violation and I demand that you stop making your product
Re:Either way... (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. As a decision maker in a company (more influencer than maker) I report to an older MIS director who has feared bringing Linux in at all. His fear was based on the fact that his perception of Linux folk was long haired trash talking freaks...despite the fact that I advocated bringing it in and do not match the description....well, I have short hair anyway
We use Sco Unixware to run our Main CRM apps. The director has been following the controv
Typical SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect they'll "terminate" SCO's SysV license with as much success as they had with IBM. I.e. their stock price will bump up and that's about it.
If they don't sue SGI ... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the reasoning behind the license cancellation were valid, then SCO would have to sue SGI for selling IRIX to protect the rights that are in question. Not doing so would seem to indicate that SCO was abandoning their purported rights.
Re:Typical SCO (Score:3, Informative)
" their stock price will bump up and that's about it. "
WTF? You terminate one of your most lucrative relationship in business and your stock goes up?
Welcome to crazy accounting world. Much like back in the day, when a company laid off workers it meant they were in financial trouble and the stock price went down, but now it is seen as a good thing they are "cutting costs" and "restructuring" so the stock price goes up; if a company decides to sue their customers it is now seen as "strongly defending th
SCO should die (Score:3, Interesting)
This shows the minor things that SCO from which they are trying to gain. However, how small of "a copy" can be included before that is considering stealing?
For example, if I "borrow" one line from a song in my song... is that stealing?
If I borrow one line from another piece of literature in my "unique" work, is that stealing?
Are they admitting to the borrowing of a small amount of code here?
Everybody borrows; genius steals.
Davak
So they've been SCOlded... big deal (Score:2, Redundant)
I'm just waiting for the SEC to wake up and realize that all of this was done so that the execs @ SCO could line their pockets.
SCO: You copied our Intellectual Property!!
[Company X]: No we didn't... that code's from the BSD codebase.
SCO: Oh... ok... well we're going to sue yo
Tommorows news today (Score:5, Funny)
The film at 11 is now the intellectual property of the SCO group.
Isn't SCO costing people a lot of money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't SCO costing SGI an awful lot of time and effort (i.e. money) to scour code in order to find the "iunfringing code" that supposedly SCO knows about and won't release? I'd think that SGI could have a case to sue SCO for refusing to identify the "infringing" code based on SGI having to spend money attempting to address SCO's claims without SCO helping? I'm pretty sure that the law requires that if you believe someone is infringing on your copyrights that you identify the infringements so that they can stop. Am I missing something, or is SCO just building a case against itself by refusing to allow people to remove the infringing code?
Re:Isn't SCO costing people a lot of money? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Isn't SCO costing people a lot of money? (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, we know that SGI does have a copy of this mystical Sys V code that SCO won't let anyone see (even though we all know what's there..."
Re:Isn't SCO costing people a lot of money? (Score:3, Insightful)
After that, SGI can argue about the copyright value associated with various code fragments. These are just insurance steps. However, as SGI has the System V code, they can surely determine what code snippets may
Re:Isn't SCO costing people a lot of money? (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole indemnification thing is another area, if you buy in to Sun's or HP's indemnification program, you essentially start to give up your rights to the software, the very rights RMS has been figh
How hard can SGI fight? (Score:5, Informative)
Make time work for you not against? (Score:3, Informative)
There is a reason for Hamlet stating "The laws delay" in his famous To be or not soliloguy
They need to sit back and do pretty much nothing, other than make demands on SCO to produce the eveidence through discovery if they indeed get sued.
Second SGI needs all the press they can get so maybe something useful can come out of this. SGI would love to be mentioned in every sentence next to IBM a
Illustrates how weak SCO's case is (Score:5, Insightful)
Legally SGI is doing the right thing. They perform due dilligence and if anything slips through the cracks they remedy it. It illustrates just how flimsy SCO's copyright case is a pointer to what may actually ultimately happen when this matter is resolved.
Prepare for more crazy ramblings from SCO in the immediate future. They will undoubtedly issue a press release claiming this is an admission of wrongdoing by SGI and play up the aspect of the letter that suggest missappropriated code, but of course this is not the message to be taken from the SGI letter.
Re:Illustrates how weak SCO's case is (Score:3, Funny)
You can almost write the SCO selective quotation press release yourself:
"SGI has released over a million lines of...System V code...in the Linux kernel."
Re:Illustrates how weak SCO's case is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Illustrates how weak SCO's case is (Score:3, Interesting)
So just how large is the economic damage that SCO has suffered? SCO will have to prove this. They have to show how they calculate these damages. Among the stuff IBM subpoenaed from SCO was all documents showing how SCO calculates the damages they claim to have suffered.
I wonder what the economic damages are from an improper 200 line contribution of trivial routines such as atoi()? Wou
Re:Illustrates how weak SCO's case is (Score:3, Insightful)
No damages are being racked up. SCO cannot claim damages that they help to create. SCO has to act to help stop the infringement. You are not willfully infringing prior to even knowing of any infringement
Thanks SGI (Score:2)
Thanks, this might prove that SCO is nothing more but greedy business graduated troll
SCOX slowling starting to learn? (Score:3, Interesting)
(I originally posted this to finance yahoo message board, but it is appropriate here.)
atoi? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:atoi? (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah but if SGI made a version of atoi, surely it exploits vector optimizations, runs in 64 bits of precision, exploits NUMA and uses OpenGL. It may be 10x the size of the kernel but whoa, it's gotta be cool.
OK for me but not for you! (Score:5, Insightful)
SGI claims they inadvertantly released UNIX code into Linux, but SCO says they are accountable; ie., lawsuit.
Is something wrong with this scene?
Wow... (Score:3)
Given sco's record of press releases and FUD (Score:5, Funny)
Open Source code in Closed Source Projects? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there a process to audit big companies code? MS threatens me with audits to check my license compliance, can I audit them to check that no open source code is in their products?
And for that matter, which license would win? If GPL'd code was found in a product like Windows, would Microsoft be forced to open source the entire thing?
Re:Open Source code in Closed Source Projects? (Score:3, Informative)
Zero
How do you protect against this?
Only through wistle-blowers
Is there a process to audit big companies code?
Not unless you're a big company
MS threatens me with audits to check my license compliance, can I audit them to check that no open source code is in their products?
It is to laugh!
If GPL'd code was found in a product like Win
Re: Open Source code in Closed Source Projects? (Score:5, Insightful)
0%. In Windows 9x (at least), for example, you can run "strings" on some of the networking utilities to get at the BSD copyright statements.
If you're asking about hidden GPL code, though, then it's anybody's guess.
How do you protect against this?
If you're part of the company in question, you could get the source code most likely to be copied (e.g. Linux if you're working on operating systems, Apache if you're writing a server, etc), try running something like Eric Raymond's new comparison program between those sources and your own code, and most importantly let your employees know that you're checking on them and that illegally claiming someone else's copyrighted material as their own is grounds for termination.
If you're someone else and only have access to the closed binaries, then you might try checking for unique symbols or debugging output, but you won't have nearly as easy a time of it.
MS threatens me with audits to check my license compliance, can I audit them to check that no open source code is in their products?
No. They may get to audit you because that's one of the rights you can sign away to get a cheap site license from them. You don't get to audit them because you've never tricked them into agreeing to it.
If GPL'd code was found in a product like Windows, would Microsoft be forced to open source the entire thing?
No. You can't force anyone to agree to the GPL. You can sue them for past copyright infringement (and probably win big if you've registered your copyrights), but (despite SCO's claims to the contrary) you can't stop them from removing your code and selling their own code no longer encumbered. In the worst case for them, if they wouldn't have a useful product without your code and are redistributing too much to reimplement themselves, then they're pretty much stuck as they've already forfeited their GPL rights and would have to negotiate new rights with every single author whose copyright they've infringed.
Re:Open Source code in Closed Source Projects? (Score:3, Informative)
Sure. File an infringement lawsuit and convince the court that you have enough of a case (for example by producing a former employee who will testify that they used your code) to proceed to discovery.
> MS threatens me with audits to check my license
> compliance...
You entered into a contract with them. I didn't and so they have no more right to audit me than I have to audit them.
> And for that matter, which license would win?
I'm not sure wha
The remedy for infringing code... (Score:5, Insightful)
The correct solution in such cases is a) determine if damages apply, and b) cease and desist infringing (that is, remove or rewrite the code).
But if the code is removed, then SCO can't charge everyone under the sun with licensing fees. And if they showed people what the hell code they're talking about, people would be able to remove the code, thus preventing them garnering licensing fees. Since removal of the code is the last thing they want to happen, they are probably unable to even present a coherent case in court. I mean, besides wanting to keep the purported infringements a secret, wouldn't a judge just order the offending code be removed?
I believe their sole strategy is to whine, posture, lie through their teeth, and desperately hope people will be scared and cave in and purchase licenses, as some have done already.
If they actually had a case, they'd take someone to court and win and be done with it. Resorting to scare tactics and hysterical accusations pretty much proves they have nothing, IMHO.
--marmot
End user liable? (Score:5, Informative)
If I buy say a Ford, and it turns out that Ford stole intellectual property from GM, would I, as a Ford owner whose car specifications have been improved by the stollen IP, have to pay say $200 to GM? I think not. GM should only sew Ford, not Ford car owners.
Now why a Linux user would be liable? Contributors to Linux and other open source project should be liable, but not end users. If SCO limited its action against code contributors, I could understand it (assuming that there are some merits). But can they actually ask end users to pay up? Can this really stand in court?
Re:End user liable? (Score:3, Insightful)
The question we should all be asking is:
"IS SCO/CANOPY GOING TO INDEMNIFY ITS STOCKHOLDERS?"
Buisness people will be getting shivers down the spine after reading that, but it makes more sense than end users being held responsable for a contr
Re:End user liable? (Score:5, Interesting)
You did, however, licence your linux software from the developers who wrote it and if they stole code, you, as a licencee, may be responsible, not for damages, but for payment of licencing fees on the code that was misappropriated.
We could argue all day about wether software *should* be considered identical to a physical object, but at present it is not. You don't buy software, you buy software licences, always.
So in summary, yes, it *could* stand up in court, not as a liability issue, i.e. damages for past illegality, but as an issue of paying a licence for the use of SCO IP. This presupposes that they can prove that Linux actually carries any such IP and that the version of the kernel you happen to be using contains any of it. The first is highly questionable and the second will be moot about a week after any infringing code segments are actually identified.
(the latter case, incidentally, does nothing to help IBM in their contractual dispute which *is* a liability issue and *is* about past damages. If infringing code is found, even if the code is removed from the linux sources, those responsible for the misappropriation, presumably IBM, will be held liable for damages. However, users should be free and clear, though linux's reputation would be substantially tarnished.)
[i am, of course, not a lawyer, but i'm pretty sure my understanding is correct.]
Re:End user liable? (Score:3, Insightful)
You understand the GPL about as well as SCO's lawyers do. The GPL is not a user license. It only applies when modification and distribution are involved. As a mere user of a 2.4 kernel, the GPL does not affect me in any way, and there is no licensing involved between me an
Another patently obvious lie by SCO (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said Tuesday that he understood the extension is being sought "for the purpose of gaining documents from IBM related to the patents they claim. . . . Some of the patents aren't even filed with the U.S. Patent Office, as far as we can learn."
From http://lwn.net/Articles/43592/ [lwn.net] the patent numbers are:
4,814,746
4,821,211
4,953,209
5,805,785
Go here http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm [uspto.gov] [uspto.gov]
Type in the patent numbers into uspto.gov form
You will find them all. Immediately. In fact they load up immediately after typing in the number.
SCO stolen code (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all a big bluff. I predict that the whole issue will mysteriously evaporate overnight. I'll bet money as soon as the legal proceedings get to a point that requires substantiating any of their claims, it will all go away. Just like their plan to invoice 1500 Linux users....
Re:SCO stolen code (Score:3, Interesting)
Profit from SCO (Score:4, Interesting)
SCO has a P/E ratio over 80 lately which indicates it's stock price is inflated anyway so it makes sense. If they're going to be a bunch of lying bastards, why shouldn't we profit from them going out of business?
Re:Profit from SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not saying nobody should do it, but it's obviously not for everyone. If you are going to short SCO, make sure you know what you are getting into.
SCO's *real* objective (Score:5, Funny)
Just ignore SCO (Score:3, Interesting)
Cravath, IBM's usual law firm and their law firm in this case, is the biggest name in business litigation. They're incredibly expensive, very thorough, and usually win. If there's some fact or legal argument anywhere that will help the case, Cravath's army of lawyers, paralegals, technical experts, and non-legal staff will find it. Cravath has filled up entire buildings with staff for previous IBM litigation.
Basically, IBM will win this unless their attorneys screw up. And Cravath doesn't screw up. They have enough people checking each other to prevent that. That's the Cravath business model.
Reasonably soon, the IBM-SCO case will reach the discovery stage, where SCO will have to disclose documents to IBM's attorneys. We'll probably see some interesting disclosures about the SCO-Microsoft deal.
Meanwhile, SCO's stock is down from a high of 20 to about 15 today.
I've figured out how SCO will spin this (Score:5, Funny)
Tomorrow's SCO press release will say:
Re:Where's the hard news? (Score:2)
In short, I'd much rather hear "We removed them because they sucked," rather than, "they're probably PD, but as a precaution we removed them anyways."
Re:Where's the hard news? (Score:3, Interesting)
This was one of my thoughts as well. We still have no real idea what the hell anybody is talking about.
OK, OK, SGI said:
found brief fragments of code matching System V code in three generic routines (ate_utils.c, the atoi function and systeminfo.h header file), all within the I/O infrastructure support for SGI's platform.
OK so they point out a few places to look, but they also go on to say:
a result of that exhaustive investigation, SGI has discovered a few add
Re:SCO's case is strengthening (Score:2)
[n] a warning against certain acts; "a caveat against unfair practices"
Which caveat does SGI want?
Re:SCO's case is strengthening (Score:2)
SGI may have admitted putting SYSV code into the Linux codebase. As soon as they discovered their transgression, they fixed it. That shows that their transgression was not intentional, and that they respected SCO's copyrights. SCO has not shown the same honesty of intention.
Re:SCO's case is strengthening (Score:4, Informative)
No, it isn't. Read Eric Raymond's [catb.org] analysis of the code in question, it is very clear that the code has been released at some point under a license that would permit it's use.
Re:SCO's case is strengthening (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it is material. This is a civil case, not a criminal. In civil cases, attempting to right a wrong is important. If SCO is succeeds, it will affect any penalties levied against SGI. Probably diminishing them significantly.
Not so black and white (Score:5, Insightful)
- No SYSV code has been misappropriated into Linux and SCO gets nothing, or
- Some code has been misappropriated into Linux and SCO gets full damages.
The real truth is likely between these two, and much closer to (1). The factors that limit damages SCO might be able to collect from SGI include:- The amount of copied code was small,
- The code copied was not unique or vital--it had been implemented elsewhere and thus cannot be worth much more than the alternative implementations,
- The infringement was not willful, and
- That the code even infringes is not obvious. The actual code has been available to many parties in various stages of openness.
It's possible that there is infringement but that SCO is entitled to so little compensation that they effectively get nothing.How this does help SCO is by allowing them to demonstrate that their misrepresentation of rights was not willful. It will be more difficult for IBM and RHAT to collect damages from SCO if SCO's allegations had any base, as trivial and insignificant as it was.
Re:Not so black and white (Score:3, Informative)
and also
Re:Not so black and white (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, their case is weakening, not strenghtening.
In the (still) unlikely event that there is SCO-owned code in Linux, they can only claim damages from the date they make the offending party aware. Since any potentially offending code has been removed before they've made the details available, their case is severely weakened.
Do some reading on the Doctrine of Laches.
Re:SCO's case is strengthening (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, yeah, SCO has a wonderful case. They've shown that malloc() and now, according to SGI, atoi() may have been copied from SysV.
For crying out loud, give me a break - we're talking about functions that companies ask prospective employees to pseudocode to prove that they know how to program! No court in this decade would possibly find for SCO.
I'd love to hear SCO come out and say "Yes, they've stolen our brilliant and amazing atoi() code! They never
Re:SCO's case is non-existent (Score:4, Interesting)
As I have stated previously,
You were wrong then, too.
Now SGI is ADMITTING that they put SYSV code in the Linux codebase.
No they're not. They're saying that they found code that happens to match some Sys V code in what they submitted -- less than 0.02% worth. The exact provenance of that code isn't clear, SysV may have got it from the same place SGI did. Your statement implies several levels of culpability that is just plain not in the SGI letter.
Whether or not it has been removed is IMMATERIAL for purposes of this case.
What case? So far the only "case" (lawsuit) is between IBM and SCO, and between RedHat and SCO. IF SCO decides to launch yet another lawsuit and sue SGI for copyright infringment (and remember, SCO has NOT made any copyright complaints against IBM (but IBM has against SCO)), then there may be a case. But SGI's action in removing the questionable code is VERY MATERIAL -- it limits SCO's claims. (Furthermore, since SCO has so far refused to reveal what code it thinks infringes, it may have no claim because it hasn't taken the necessary steps to mitigate damage.)
Well then maybe you should look at your reasoning (Score:4, Insightful)
Now SGI is ADMITTING that they put SYSV code in the Linux codebase. Whether or not it has been removed is IMMATERIAL for purposes of this case.
SGI admitted no such thing. SGI said that they looked at the code in question and saw some similarities with Sys V code as well. The fact that the code in question existed long BEFORE Sys V and was also available under public domain means that the reason for the similarity is quite strongly in doubt. Additionally, SCO themselves backed off their claim when it was challenged after the slide show presentation.
If anything this further shoots down SCO's complaints about complete disregard for IP as we have code being removed merely because it MIGHT have copyright issues. This is being done without any information, legal actions, or threats from SCO.
Remember, so far the ONLY company being legally accused of copyright infringement in this whole ongoing tragedy is SCO.
Re:Someone explain me ... (Score:3, Interesting)
for ( i = 0; i < max; ++ i )
The line of code above belongs to me, I wrote it and everyone who has any similar code, including code resulting in compilation needs to pay me.
The poster of the parent article is herby given notice of infringement and $150,000 damages for each infringement. I estimate that $1e12 (1 trillion dollars) is a good starting point.
The point I'm trying t