|
|
| Kathleen Bennett's Declaration in Support of IBM Motion for PSJ on 8th CC (Copyright Infringement) - PDF and text |
 |
|
Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 02:02 AM EST
|
Here is Kathleen Bennett's Declaration in Support of IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Counterclaim for Copyright Infringement (Eighth Counterclaim), which is one of the documents filed as paper only. Thanks to Frank Sorenson, who obtained it from the courthouse and scanned it in for us, we have it to share with you.
Ms. Bennett has another, shorter Declaration in Support of IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims, which includes some of this material, but this Declaration is in support of the 8th Counterclaim, the GPL counterclaim, and it is mentioned throughout IBM's Redacted Memorandum in Support of IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Counterclaim for Copyright Infringement (8th Counterclaim). In it, Ms. Bennett lists the copyrighted files that IBM claims SCO has infringed, and Ms. Bennett relates downloading copies of SCO's infringing files from its website. This is the Declaration SCO is referring to in its recently filed Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Counterclaim for Copyright Infringement (8th Counterclaim) wherein it accuses IBM of the felony of "hacking" its website. "By improperly obtaining the evidence assertedly in support of its counterclaim and instant motion, IBM comes to the Court with unclean hands," SCO claims. I find it more likely that IBM had a password, from purchasing the product. It seems more than farfetched to believe that IBM's lawyers are unaware of criminal laws and were unable to provide appropriate guidance. SCO seems to think that providing the files only to preexisting customers protects them from an accusation of breach of the GPL. I believe they will find out otherwise.
******************************
SNELL & WILMER, L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan, Esq.(3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy, Esq. (6651)
Amy F. Sorenson (8947)
[address, phone, fax]
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
|
DECLARATION OF
KATHLEEN
BENNETT IN SUPPORT OF
IBM'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS
COUNTERCLAIM FOR
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
(EIGHTH COUNTERCLAIM)
Civil No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
|
1
I, Kathleen Bennett, declare as follows:
1. I am currently employed by International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") as a Senior Software Development Manager in the Austin, Texas office of its Linux Technology Center. The IBM Linux Technology Center ("LTC") is a worldwide development team inside IBM that collaborates with the community of software developers and computer users involved with Linux, the open source computer operating system.
2. I submit this declaration in connection with the lawsuit titled The SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, Civil No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK (D. Utah 2003). Unless stated otherwise, I make this declaration based upon personal knowledge.
3. I have been employed by IBM for 18 years, and have been involved in open source computing and Linux the last 3 years. I am presently responsible for managing the following departments within the LTC: Linux Kernel, Linux on xSeries, Linux RAS (Reliability, Availability and Serviceability) Development, and Linux Security Development. As a result, I am familiar with and have personal knowledge of IBM's Linux activities. 4. IBM employs programmers who write computer code and programs at the company's direction. IBM owns the copyrights to these works, many of which IBM has registered with the United States Copyright Office.
5. Among the copyrighted works for which IBM holds copyright registration certificates are the following sixteen works of original computer source code (described briefly below), which I refer to herein as the "IBM Copyrighted Works":
(i) Enterprise Volume Management System, TX 5-757-696 (Enterprise Volume Management System manages a system's online storage using a logical volume concept to provide flexibility and extensibility.);
2
(ii) Enterprise Class Event Logging, TX 5-757-697 (Enterprise Class Event Logging provides a platform-independent event logging facility for the Linux operating system and Linux applications.);
(iii) Dynamic Probes, TX 5-757-698 (Dynamic Probes is a generic debugging facility that can be used to insert software probes into executing code modules.);
(iv) Linux Support PowerPC64, TX 5-757-699 (Linux Support Power PC64 is a port of the Linux kernel to 64-bit PowerPC processors.);
(v) Omni Print Driver, TX 5-757-700 (Omni Print Driver provides support for hundreds of printers using the Ghostscript framework.);
(vi) Journaled File System, TX 5-757-701 (Journaled File System provides a file system that manages and organizes stored data.);
(vii) Next Generation Posix Threading, TX 5-757-702 (Next Generation POSIX Threading provides an implementation of the POSIX threads specification.);
(viii) Linux Kernel Support for JFS, TX 5-856-466 (Linux Kernel Support for JFS provides support for IBM's journaled file system technology, which is designed for high-throughput server environments.);
(ix) Linux Kernel S390 Support, TX 5-856-467 (Linux Kernel S390 Support is a port of the Linux kernel to the S/390 architecture.);
(x) Linux Kernel Support for the Service Processor, TX 5-856-468 (Linux Kernel Support for Service Processor is a device driver for the Service Processor hardware component of IBM eServer systems.);
(xi) Linux Kernel Support for Memory Expansion Technology, TX 5-856-469 (Linux Kernel Support for Memory Expansion Technology is software that enables Memory eXpansion Technology, which is hardware technology for compressing main memory contents.);
(xii) Linux Kernel Support for IBM eServer iSeries Devices, TX 5-856-470 (Linux Kernel Support for IBM eServer iSeries Devices provides Linux support for certain devices that are unique to the IBM iSeries environment.);
(xiii) Linux Kernel Support for PCI Hotplug, TX 5-856-471 (Linux Kernel Support for PCI Hotplug provides the infrastructure for PCI Hotplug on Linux, which is a facility that supports dynamic (re)configuration of the Linux operating system.);
(xiv) Linux Kernel Support for pSeries Hypervisor Terminal, TX 5-856-472 (Linux Kernel Support for pSeries Hypervisor Terminal is a device driver for providing system admin access to the pSeries Hypervisor hardware component.);
3
(xv) Linux Kernel PPC64 Support, TX 5-856-473 (Linux Kernel PPC64 Support is a port of the Linux kernel to 64-bit PowerPC processors.); and
(xvi) Linux Kernel Support for Mwave Modem, TX 5-856-474 (Linux Kernel Support for Mwave Modem is code that supports IBM ThinkPad models with the Mwave Modem chipset.)
The registration of each of these IBM Copyrighted Works was made within five years of the first publication of the relevant work.
6. True and correct copies of the relevant portions (i.e., those files literally copied by SCO) of the IBM Copyrighted Works and their accompanying copyright registration certificates are attached as Exhibits 5.1 through 20.1 (Works) and 5 through 20 (Registration Certificates) to the accompanying Declaration of Amy F. Sorenson ("Sorenson Declaration"). At no time has IBM abandoned its copyrights to the IBM Copyrighted Works.
7. IBM contributed the IBM Copyrighted Works to the Linux and open source communities by posting them on the Internet as part of the Linux development process. IBM has not authorized the copying, modifications or distribution of the IBM Copyrighted Works, except pursuant to the terms of the GNU General Public License or the GNU Lesser General Public License. Everyone, including SCO, has had access to the IBM Copyrighted Works through the Internet.
8. In addition, SCO has had access to the IBM Copyrighted Works through SCO's involvement in the UnitedLinux consortium. Code from fifteen of the sixteen IBM Copyrighted Works (all but Omni Print Driver) is included in the UnitedLinux 1.0 release of Linux. It is a matter of public record that SCO was a partner in UnitedLinux, which developed UnitedLinux 1.0.
9. Under my direction, a team of IBM programmers compared the IBM Copyrighted Works to code that has been produced by SCO in this litigation. We found, in SCO
4
Linux Server 4.0 and SCO OpenLinux 3.1.1 Asia, verbatim copies of files from the IBM Copyrighted Works appearing at Exhibits 5.1 through 20.1 of the accompanying Sorenson Declaration. The files in SCO's Linux products that are verbatim copies of files within the IBM Copyrighted Works comprise approximately 783,000 lines of code, and appear at Exhibits 5.2 through 20.2 of the Sorenson Declaration.
10. Also under my direction, our team of programmers compared the IBM Copyrighted Works to code we found available for download on SCO's website.
On January 9, 2004, I observed while a member of my team accessed via the Internet the following four SCO web pages, and downloaded code from these web pages:
(1) http://linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux/update/RPMS.updates;
(2) http://Linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux/SRPMS;
(3) http://linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux/update/RPMS.scolinux; and
(4) ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/server/CSSA-2002-026.0/SRPMS.
11. The code posted and made available for download via the Internet from SCO's website included verbatim copies of files from the IBM Copyrighted Works appearing at Exhibits 5.1 through 20.1 of the accompanying Sorenson Declaration. The files from SCO's website that are verbatim copies of files within the IBM Copyrighted Works comprise approximately 783,000 lines of code, and appear at Exhibits 5.3 through 20.3 of the Sorenson Declaration.
12. My team and I accessed SCO's website from the Internet, using a standard computer and web browser. Any person with access to the Internet, a standard web browser and a personal computer or laptop could access SCO's website and download Linux code, just as my team and I did. No special expertise would be necessary.
5
13. On August 4, 2004, my team again visited the SCO web pages listed in Paragraph 10, and confirmed that all of the code attached as Exhibits 5.3 through 20.3 of the Sorenson Declaration was still available for download from SCO's website.
14. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed: August 16, 2004
Austin, Texas
____[signature]_____
Kathleen Bennett
6
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on the 16th day of August, 2004, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was hand delivered to the following:
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]
and was sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following:
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
Robert Silver
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLPL
[address]
___[signature]___
Amy F. Sorenson
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: chrisbrown on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 02:05 AM EST |
| n/t [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chrisbrown on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 02:06 AM EST |
| n/t [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I don't think this is off topic but... - Authored by: one_penguin on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 04:07 AM EST
- Violation? How can one glue a LINUX compatible addon to any OS kernel without violating the GPL? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 04:33 AM EST
- OT - Make Love Not Spam scrapped - Authored by: N. on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 06:11 AM EST
- For All_Paradox - Authored by: marbux on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 06:21 AM EST
- OT: Web Services Patent Auction - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 06:44 AM EST
- Reminder: M$ reply to Novell complaint due/delay today - Authored by: fudisbad on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 08:26 AM EST
- The importance of trust. - Authored by: kinrite on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 08:39 AM EST
- Totally OT: Brain co-processor? - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 09:41 AM EST
- Sun's COO Pretends Linux Belongs To Red Hat - Authored by: thinman on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 10:41 AM EST
- SCO "Unix" license - Authored by: GLJason on Friday, December 10 2004 @ 01:54 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: ssavitzky on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 02:43 AM EST |
| The referenced FTP directory seems to have gone away, but ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/ is still up, still with
no password protection -- Firefox opens it just fine.
All of the linux
packages seem to have been removed, replaced by a file called "Legal_Notice".
See, for example, ftp:
//ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updates/SRPMS/Legal_Notice
I'd
hardly call using a web browser to access an anonymous FTP site
"hacking" ---
The SCO method: open mouth, insert foot, pull trigger. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 02:48 AM EST |
Go here, look at dates on directories (I'm NOT suggesting that you need to
download anything or enter any passwords or doing anything unethical - this is a
public web site that doesn't appear password protected)
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/ [if you go to ftp://ftp.sco.com/ you can navigate to
this, so you can see for yourself this is a public site, and it is linked from
public web pages on www.sco.com ]
(A) OpenLinux3.1.1 is dated 14 October 2004
(B) OpenLinux3.1 is dated 25 June 2004
(C) OpenLinux311 is dated 01 July 2004
However, now check out the dates on the subfolders of each
For (A) - I18N, Server and Workstation subdirectories (but not drivers) are
dated 02 December 00:00:00 (prior to the date the parent was created)
For (B) - there are no subdirectories
For (C) - I18N, Server and Workstation subdirectories (but not drivers) are
dated 02 December 00:00:00 (prior to the date the parent was created)
And of course, it's a little odd that the dates of the subdirectories are all
exactly the same, and all exactly at midnight
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anni on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 02:55 AM EST |
"No special expertise would be necessary."
Shouldn't this sentence alone kill the 'hackers!' accusation?
And I have a deja vu with this declaration. I'm positive it has appeared here in
an article at some point before.
Anni
---
Organic chemistry is the study of carbon compounds;
Biochemistry is the study of carbon compounds that crawl.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: urzumph on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 03:50 AM EST |
"I find it more likely that IBM had a password, from purchasing the
product. It seems more than farfetched to believe that IBM's lawyers are unaware
of criminal laws and were unable to provide appropriate guidance."
I would agree with you, except for paragraph 12.
"12. My team and I accessed SCO's website from the Internet, using a
standard computer and web browser. Any person with access to the Internet, a
standard web browser and a personal computer or laptop could access SCO's
website and download Linux code, just as my team and I did. No special expertise
would be necessary."
Which says nothing about a password, despite explicitly listing that you need
"access to the Internet, a standard web browser and a personal computer or
laptop".
ftp.sco.com allows anonymous logins, so anyone with a web browser which supports
ftp (or an FTP client, or for that matter, wget) who knows, or can guess that
ftp.sco.com exists can easily get access to it. Anonymous FTP is definately not
'hacking' (although the term cracking would be more accurate given what they are
trying to describe)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 07:59 AM EST |
I don't understand this. If SCO are providing their customers with a free copy
of the source, aren't they complying with the GPL? I would think that the GPL
would only be licenced if they refused to provide the source, in which case IBM
would have rather more difficulty in proving that their source was in SCO's
product at all.
Or is it the terms under which the source is provided (non disclosure blah blah)
that constitute a violation?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pscottdv on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 09:49 AM EST |
I seem to remember sometime around the end of the year that SCO's ftp site
requested authentication but that to get passed it you just clicked OK without
entering anything and it just let you right in.
I learned this from a post here on Groklaw and then I tried it and it worked.
Can anyone find the post? I tried, but didn't have time to look very hard.
Is this IBM's hacking? They clicked 'OK' without entering credentials?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 10:52 AM EST |
Once again we return to discussing, SCO's accusation of hacking by IBM in
several posts.
It seems to me...
IBM did not need to "hack"
(that is SCO's characterization of IBM accessing a publicly available Internet
site -- not mine) to know that SCO is distributing Linux... SCO told
everybody that they are doing so, and intended to continue to do
so.
For example (I believe there are also similar quotations in other
articles by Chris Sontag and possibly Darl McBride).
Computer Weekly -
BLAKE STOWELL - 29 September 2003
SCO has not sold the SCO Linux
software in question since 12
May, but the company continues to
distribute it via the internet to
honour existing support contracts, said
SCO spokesman Blake
Stowell.
Stowell disputed the idea
that SCO could no longer distribute
Linux. "We're the copyright holder
for the core Unix operating
system. If we want to charge someone a
licensing fee for using
our copyrighted software that's gone into Linux,
then we have that
prerogative," he said.
"If we want
to continue to distribute Linux to our existing
customers, we can do that
because we own the copyrights on
that Unix
software."
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 11:35 AM EST |
Compare and contrast - SCO have given differnt statements at different times in
the case, about their distribution of SCO Linux 4.0.
(A) We
intend to stop distributing Linux at the end of 2004
SCO's Memo in
Opposition to IBM's Motion for PSJ on CC for Copyright Infringement -
December 2004
Appears to state that:
1. SCO continued
distributing Linux after May 14, 2003 (from a Sontag declaration), and made its
last sale of Linux server on May 31 2004 (from a Hughes declaration)
2.
That SCO distributed via its web site after August 2003 (from a Sontag
declaration)
3. That SCO intends to stop distributing via its web site
at the end of 2004 (from Sontag and Hughes declarations).
14. SCO distributed SCO Linux Server 4.0 for only a few months, from
November 19, 2002,
until May 14, 2003. Hughes Decl. ¶¶2-3.
A few months after determining that Linux was
tainted with
misappropriated SCO code, SCO suspended its sales of Linux products
pending clarification of the intellectual property issues. Hughes Decl.
¶3. After May 14,
2003, SCO entered into no further
obligations to sell SCO Linux Server 4.0 or any other
Linux
product. Id. SCO made limited post-May 14 sales to customers in consideration
of its
obligations to its customers. Id. ¶¶3-5; Sontag
Decl. ¶¶12-14. The last sale of Linux Server
4.0 was on May
31, 2004. Hughes Decl. ¶4. (SCO therefore disputes IBM St. ¶26.) All of
SCO's Linux distributions (both prior to and after May 2003)
were made under the GPL,
with no charge of any nature for
royalties or licensing fees. Hughes Decl. ¶9.
...
17. The files that IBM hacked remained on SCO's website after August
5, 2003, because of
SCO's pre-existing contractual
obligations with its customers and with the UnitedLinux
consortium. Sontag Decl. ¶17-19. Under the GPL, each time SCO distributed a
copy of IBM's
purported works in executable form, SCO was
to provide the customer "with the complete
corresponding
machine-readable source code" on a "medium customarily used for
software interchange" or with an offer to provide the code at cost. GPL §3.
SCO complied
by making the source code available to its
customers on its website. SCO will remove all
Linux-related code from its website promptly after expiration of the last of its
contractual
commitments, on December 31, 2004. Hughes Decl.
¶11; Sontag Decl. ¶17. SCO's
"distribution" of any Linux
products, even in this limited fashion, will cease by the end of
2004. Id.
(B) We already stopped
distributing out SCO Linux 4.0
From SCO's Revised Supplemental
Response to IBM's First and Second Set of Interrogatories - January
2004
Go to page 67 of the PDF, IBM interrogatory 13, IBM
asks
(b) whether plaintiff has ever distributed the code or other
material or otherwise made it available to the public, as part of a Linux
distribution or otherwise, and, if so, the circumstances which it was
distributed or otherwise made available, when it was distributed or made
available, to whom it was distributed or made available, and terms under which
it was distributed or made available (such as under the GPL or any other
license).
While this interrogatory relates to whatever
code that SCO contends IBM should not have contributed to Linux ("disputed
material") .... there is an overlap in that in SCO's opposition memo,
they contend that at least JFS in Linux is one example of such
material.
Furthermore, the exact same SCO products are at issue as in
the Sontag and Huges declarations referenced in part (A), here is what SCO
says.
...SCO sold or distributed the 2.4 kernel and above
for a brief period of time in SCO Linux 4.0, Powered by United Linux. The sale
of this product was under the GPL, without knowledge of the violations
identified above. After gaining knowledge of the violations discussed above,
SCO ceased distribution of the code in question. The particulars of when
it was distributed and to whom can be found in the invoices Bates range 1186853
to 1227921 for the narrowing of the appropriate invoices they have been attached
as Tab 121"
(C) Yes we really stopped
distributed Linux long ago
Mark Heise
letter - February 2004
This was in response to an IBM letter asking
SCO (among other things) whether they had really stopped distributing Linux form
their web site.
IBM had asked:
Sixth, SCO also fails to
identify
all places or locations where
the code at issue in this case
may be found or accessed
(such as on SCO websites),
and all the
specific SCO
products --- UNIX, UnixWare,
Linux, or otherwise --- in which
the code at issue in
this case
was included, and when, to
whom and under what terms
such products were
distributed or made available.
Although SCO does identify
two of its Linux products that
contain the
Linux 2.4 kernel
code at issue, we believe that
there are other products that
SCO distributed or
made
available that also contain
such
code (such as Caldera
Open Linux 3.1). Further, as
SCO also appears to claim that
the Linux 2.2.12
kernel
contains code that was
misappropriated or misused by
IBM, SCO must also identify
all
SCO products in which it
distributed the Linux 2.2.12
kernel, and when, to whom,
and under what terms such
products were
distributed or
made available.
And
to which SCO replies:
Moreover, regarding IBM's specific comment that SCO must
identify where on its website and in which SCO
products
the Protected Materials
may be found or accessed, that
has
been done. As indicated in response to Interrogatory
Nos. 3 and 13, the Protected Materials would be found in
any other product that contains Linux 2.4
kernel or above
and SCO
distributed the Linux 2.4 kernel and above for a
brief period of time in SCO Linux server 4.0. Moreover, we
provided you with the invoices that laid the
terms under
which these materials
were made available.
The commentary that IBM believes there are other
products that SCO distributed or made available containing
such code is incorrect. Specifically, IBM's
claim that the
Linux 2.2.12 kernel
contains infringing code and therefore
SCO must produce all products in which it distributed the
Linux 2.2.12 kernel is simply incorrect. Using the
instance
of IBM's improper
contributions of JFS to Linux, IBM
certainly is aware that it appeared as a patch in Linux
2.2.12. However, JFS was not accepted into the “official”
Linux source tree until Linux 2.4.20.
Therefore, although
IBM publicly
displayed JFS in violation of the IBM Related
Agreements as early as Linux 2.2.12, JFS did not become a
standard part of Linux until 2.4.20. In other
words, prior to
Linux 2.4.20, the
only Linux distributions that included JFS
were ones that had downloaded JFS from IBM's website
and added it to that distribution. SCO did not do so
therefore, contrary to Mr.
Shaughnessy's statement,
Caldera
Open Linux 3.1 did not include IBM's improper
public display of JFS.
Quatermass
IANAL
IMHO
(P.S. There's an interesting little side issue relating to
Caldera Open Linux 3.1/3.1.1 which I may post about separately)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 12:07 PM EST |
"This is the Declaration SCO is referring to in its recently filed
Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its
Counterclaim for Copyright Infringement (8th Counterclaim) wherein it accuses
IBM of the felony of "hacking" its website. "By improperly
obtaining the evidence assertedly in support of its counterclaim and instant
motion, IBM comes to the Court with unclean hands," SCO claims."
- What they've done requires no password, no login, and no knowledge of
computers beyond that needed to do a google search. ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/ is
still up, and is as much "hacking" as using
http://www.sco.com/company/
Calling it "hacking" or "cracking" is an insult to hackers
and crackers. Mind you, I don't think it's easy to insult crackers :-)
Zimbel[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not Hacking nor cracking - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 01:24 PM EST
- Heh - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 01:49 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Nick Bridge on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 01:00 PM EST |
| Thanks again to Frank for the legwork. It is very widely appreciated. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 01:10 PM EST |
If someone is distributing GPL code in binary form, in a proprietary package,
without supplying the source code, is there any way to prove this, or at least
get enough evidence to subpoena the source code?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kalak on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 01:12 PM EST |
Now that we have the web URLs listed:
(1)
http://linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux/update/RPMS.updates;
(2)
http://Linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux/SRPMS;
(3)
http://linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux/update/RPMS.scolinux;
Can
anyone confirm that the http URLs were not password protected on January 9,
2004? (Not the ftp one)
We all basically know the ftp required squat
for the login, and that IBM almost certainly has a copy of everything SCO has
but out over the years (Caldera, realSCO, SCOX recent release even), but if the
web URLs were password protected as they are currently, then there may be error
in the declaration that anyone "using a standard computer and web browser." If
it was password protected one this date, then they method used to access the
site (even if it was the password they obtained with the copy IBM bought) was
left out of the declaration.
(Let's assume a standard computer includes
an internet connection, which isn't really the case, but that's nearly
irrelevant - though I may have just given SCO another excuse to
delay.)
---
Kalak: I am, and always will be, an idiot.
Also, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 01:17 PM EST |
In another thread, someone compared IBM getting Linux source files from SCOX to
entering an unlocked door to burgle a house. A more appropriate analogy would be
to compare this action to finding a door with a sign over a keypad reading,
"There are cookies for friends inside. Enter your number and press the
button to get yours." The "friend" then tries the button and the
door pops open. If the button presser then takes a cookie, is she guilty of
anything?
billwww (formerly addicted to strict interpretation)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 01:35 PM EST |
> 9. Under my direction, a team of IBM
programmers compared the IBM
Copyrighted Works to code
that has been produced by SCO in this litigation.
We
found, in SCO Linux Server 4.0 and SCO OpenLinux 3.1.1
Asia, verbatim
copies […]
If I understand correctly this paragraph, they
also
noticed stolen code in data that was given to them in
discovery. I
assume even if they « hacked »
SCO's server, only the evidence they
would have got from
the server would be stricken, NOT the evidence they got
in
the discovery process (and it would be enough to prove
they did
infringe). So, why is SCO making so much fuss
about hacking ? *Another*
PR stunt ?
— wsapplegate (can't bother to
login) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 02:12 PM EST |
It is not uncommon to see on warez sites, which are sites which distribute
pirated copies of commercial software (I work for a software company and
sometimes have been involved in tracking down sites which distribute pirated
versions of our software) things like:
"You may not access this site if you work for any law enforcement agency,
or you work for any of the following: BSA, Microsoft, Adobe, Corel etc,
etc."
or
"By using this site, that you agree that any information obtained will be
used for your personal educational use only, and will not be used as evidence in
any lawsuit or ... etc"
Maybe it's just me, but SCO's argument on their legal notice seems to have some
similarities to this approach.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Incorrect - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 03:32 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 03:04 PM EST |
SCO had posted the Linux kernels, both 2.4 and 2.6 versions, on it's public ftp
server. I myself downloaded them when SCO started all this, and then again over
6 months later when Eben Moglen presented a paper regarding SCO's GPL violation,
in which he said SCO's ftp server was still providing the files.
I did so to ensure, as Eben said, I HAD A VALID LICENSE GIVEN TO ME BY SCO, that
being the one included with the kernel download files.
<br><br>
Just because they created a username/password system for their web site (http),
closing the window, they forgot to close the door! (ftp). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 06:47 PM EST |
>It seems more than farfetched to believe that IBM's lawyers
>are unaware of criminal laws and were unable to provide
>appropriate guidance.
I'm assuming the computer fraud and abuse act of 96 would be the applicable
statute, or is there something newer?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bbaston on Wednesday, December 08 2004 @ 02:37 PM EST |
<login>
... wuzposted byme.
</login>
---
Ben
-------------
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO,
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold.
-+++->> Have you donated to Groklaw this month?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
