Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 02:25 AM EDT |
"...and the third will take legal action against those who refuse."
Now how "legal" is this? iwaku[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 02:52 AM EDT |
SCO-scum has no option but to try to extort from end users, because the money
they got from M$ and the Sun is going to run out on them soon. Unless they are
tone-deaf, they probably understand by now that the outcome of every lawsuit is
going to be definitely unfavorable to them. So I believe that their business
plan requires that they successfully extract money from the end users before the
lawsuits are tried. If SCO-scum sues the end users, and ends up stuck in court
instead until the lawsuits involving IBM and RH are resolved, then SCO-scum is
pretty much out of business. blacklight[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:01 AM EDT |
http
://www.cbronline.com/todaysnews/c10eb5d536538bbd80256d880018c81f quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:07 AM EDT |
http://www.computing.co.uk/News/1
143098 quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:14 AM EDT |
PJ, thanks for the latest Darl McBride quotes: a day without more oral sex from
Darl McBride is a day without sunshine. blacklight[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:17 AM EDT |
htt
p://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39115818,00.htm quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:54 AM EDT |
blacklight:
We can call them SCO or SCOX. Some companies are powerful and threatening
enough that they may deserve name-calling. Other companies do things like
making slides of evidence that destroys their case and presenting these slides
to hundreds of witnesses.
SCO by itself is funnier than anything we can add to their name. r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:02 AM EDT |
SCO will go after the smaller firms now, the ones without the funds to fight a
protracted legal battle. They know that they do not have the proverbial
snowball's chance in hell of winning the fight with IBM or Redhat. But this
could also backfire on them by getting into court earlier rather than later.
Any court worth it's salt will not find against a company the suits that are
already ongoing have been settled in some way. But if SCO takes anyone to court,
they will have to unveil their code sooner rather than later and the whole show
would be over.
That is what is needed, for the matter to get before a judge.
I think that a common defense fund could be established to help any small
company or individual that is taken to court by SCO or threatened by them. I
would be willing to contribute.
Glenn Glenn Thigpen[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:02 AM EDT |
Okay - I am totally against what SCO is doing, but after seeing what is now on
the Groklaw site for August 20, what is a company sued by SCO to do ? I am not
a legal person, and simple nasty comments about SCO don't help me to solve this
problem. Again, what is a person or firm who receives a 'billet doux' from SCO
to do ? Ignore it and end up in court, or pass it on to IBM, or what ? This
needs to be answered for the sake of everybody. Eben Moglen suggests that SCO
has no leg to stand on, but now we are talking about SCO targetting a small firm
which may roll over in order to stop further action. Okay Linux world - tell
me, what is the firm to do ? Dr Tony Young[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:10 AM EDT |
http://www.linuxworld.com/story
/33973.htm quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:13 AM EDT |
How can they sue if they haven't proved that Linux contains System V code? Just
because you refuse to pay them for ...(don't know what)? IANAL, so I can't
understand this. Maybe PJ could explain on what basis they could sue me?
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">iwaku[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:14 AM EDT |
Dr Tony Young: If you receive such a letter let your attorney contact the FSF /
Eben Moglen. Under no circumstance should you respond without obtaining proper
legal advice from your own attorney first. If you don't have an attorney, hire
one. inc_x[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:16 AM EDT |
Dr Young, how could they find out who you are?
And is it realistic to expect yourself to be on their first hit list? Let's
remember SCO is a pretty small company with very limited resources.
IANAL, so this ain't legal advice! quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:25 AM EDT |
Tony: first thing to do: CONTACT A LAWYER. He should be able to prevent
you from doing stupid things.
There are various strategies possible, from presenting the whole scheme as a
fraud to your Attorney General, going for the lawsuit against SCO, stretching
the case till copyright arguments are settled to silently paying up. I can't
promis a thing, but I'm pretty sure that people on the net will be rushing to
give you their free advice (without warranty) when you post the details on the
correct forum.
IANAL, but I advice against you signing a SCO license contract without a
detailed review of all of the contract's clauses. It contains a few that strike
me as extremely onerous. MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:38 AM EDT |
shouldnt people contact their attorney general of their state and maybe the post
office attorney general (or wahtever he is called) if they receive a bill for
services they didnt contract for? maybe even the better business bureau.
IANAL but if someone sent me a bill and i didnt sign a contract with them i
would think someone one needs to be checking out what is going on.i would NOT
ignore it though.attorney advice is essential making sure to give them all the
facts and not just sco facts.
br3n brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:43 AM EDT |
They better not send those bogus invoices via US Postal mail or they'll be
committing mail fraud... Oh, wait... I HOPE they send those invoices via US
mail... that's the ticket... Anthony Awtrey[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:45 AM EDT |
Here's another question: in case SCOX jumps the gun and really drags someone to
court, won't the judge be able to delay until 2005, until the SCOX vs. IBM case
has been tried? After all, there is no hurry as there was no preliminary
injunction etc. etc. El Tonno[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:53 AM EDT |
Excuse me, but I'm fed up with all of this mudslinging from SCO. Now that they
have threatened to sue individual users on what almost everyone believes are
unfounded claims (not to mention that, if I understand correctly, end users have
*never* been found liable for such claims, even if they were real), wouldn't it
be appropriate for concerned businesses and individuals to take them to court?
(Yes, I know that what I'm asking for could be intended as legal advice, so
please refrain from answering if you aren't at least a paralegal. Of course I'm
also going to ask my lawyer before going further.) Linux user[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 05:02 AM EDT |
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/08/20/sco_underc
uts_its_linux_case quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 05:13 AM EDT |
http://www.computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/UNID/1A32A136573
41830CC256D7B0075B6B3?OpenDocument quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 05:14 AM EDT |
http://www.computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/UNID/1A32A136573
41830CC256D7B0075B6B3?OpenDocument quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 05:18 AM EDT |
In re the Boston Globe article:
Chris Sontag is being clever, like Nixon. "The source code is absolutely owned
by SCO." That is likely true. But it is also completely irrelevant. The code
was released under the BSD license; therefor while it may be "owned by", it is
reusable by anyone, under the terms of the BSD license.
The question of the nessecity of displaying the BSD info as required by the BSD
1.0 license is open.
td Thomas Downing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 05:32 AM EDT |
Let'S see what Greg Lehey says, after "heise Verlag" in Germany published some
shots by c't-Reporter Erich Bonnert from the "evidence" Slides at SCO Forum
:
http://www.lemis.com/g
rog/SCO/code-comparison.html
See also the comparison from Bruce Perence, with the pictures from SCO Forum
here :
http://perens.com/Articles/
SCOCopiedCode.html
Greets. zaphod[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 05:34 AM EDT |
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c
hronicle/archive/2003/08/20/BU280190.DTL&type=business
Similar to the Boston.com article, except references SCO releasing the code
themselves under BSD license quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 05:51 AM EDT |
http://www.heise.de/
newsticker/data/jk-20.08.03-000/
Babelfish translation amusing:
Moglen refers to a set of the attorney Mark Heise from the kanzlei, that
represents SCO in the procedure with IBM. Mark of Heise had expressed the
opinion in the last week that the GPL was altogether invalid , because she
permits more than one backup copy of a software. This argumentation calls evenly
Moglen now frivol, because hardly an attorney with dignity, who would like to
exist with it before court quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 06:02 AM EDT |
Hehe, zaphod refers to http://perens.com/Articles/
SCOCopiedCode.html
where rep Perense says:
"SCO don't have enough understanding of the case to be able to lie convincingly.
Indeed, they have so little understanding that it's difficult to accuse them of
lying."
Any chance that they will roll that out as defense in the end? (Wouldn't work
though) El Tonno[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 06:05 AM EDT |
What's the betting on a SCO press release today, or another teleconference
coming soon? quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 06:13 AM EDT |
Hm, what do you think SCO does with the Reporter that shot the pictures at SCO
Forum ??? Is he violating any IP of SCO *g*
Funny also, that SCO were hiding the "Code" simply by changing the Font to greek
... and this can be reversed just as simple. Great this article from Perens
... zaphod[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 06:23 AM EDT |
Maybe they will try to file an injunction against the reporter, and maybe every
other news outlet that's carrying the story.
If they do issue a press release, I bet they'll mention the NDA. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 06:56 AM EDT |
Dr. Young:
What's a business to do? Try your local or federal prosecutor's office. Stuart
Thayer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 07:13 AM EDT |
zaphod: Interesting observation down at the bottom of http://www.lemis.com/g
rog/SCO/code-comparison.html.
In brief, it isolates a couple of points which suggest that the current SMP code
in SCO's own Unix may in fact have been lifted from Linux. Frank Brickle[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 07:33 AM EDT |
quartermass,
They can't mention the NDA because the slides that were photographed where not
shown under an NDA. They were shown during the keynote to a public audience.
Of course, that wouldn't stop them from suing, since 'publicy released' info is
still 'absolutely owned by SCO', according to them.
On a side note of the SCO name, I make a prediction. In a couple of years,
after this is over, I bet that SCO will be held in the same light within the
tech industry as Ishtar is held in the movie industry. It will become a
generic, and not too flattering, term. I can hardly wait.
Adam Adam Ruth[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 07:36 AM EDT |
I honestly doesn't understand how he reaches that "conclusion". I haven't seen
any of SCO's code (neither one of the two pictures released show any actual SCO
code -- just a comment), so how can he say something like "If SCO now has
functions like mutex_spinlock in the kernel, [...]"?
That's a pretty big *IF*, so big it's not worth speculating on. Of course, if
someone's actually seen SCO code with said code... then it's another matter. eloj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 07:57 AM EDT |
r.a.:
"We can call them SCO or SCOX"
Since it's "SCO Group" I suggest "scog" as the IT/IP equivilant of "scud": a
trheat that's more annoying than effective.
"Well, he sure scogged us again today (hee,hee)."
"Yet another scog attack againt the Linux community..." Rand[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 08:14 AM EDT |
SCO Group down 3.4% - I guess the stock market people are wary of them.
Until the next timed press release that may likely bring it up again. :) Clint C.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 08:30 AM EDT |
eloj is of course right
Hmmm....Analysis redux...let me get this straight.
Just looking at slide 'A':
0) We suppose both slides show results of comparing the same file
taken form SCO kernel and from Linux kernel.
1) Analysis of the 'Linux right side' is easy: It's a definition of
function atealloc(). The color coding does not seem to yield
useful information. Some guy must like polycolor code.
We find:
ulong_t atealloc(struct map *mp,size_t size)
that can be found in http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/a
te_utils.c
which is apparently (the top of the file says so):
Copyright (C) 1992 - 1997, 2000-2002 Silicon Graphics, Inc.
and under the GPL
The text in ate_utils.c (not on the slide) uses function kmalloc(),
which is Linux-specifc.
2) Analysis of the 'SCOX left side' is easy: It's just commentary.
some loser obfuscated the code with a quick poke at Windows. It's
evident that it is commentary as the the line of 'stars' goes
right to the bottom. Nonobvious to non-coders. Again,
the color coding does not seem to yield useful information. Some
guy must like polycolor code.
The complete text says:
/*
* Allocate 'size' units from the given map.
* Return the base of the allocated space.
* In a map, the addresses are increasing and the
* list is terminated by a 0 size.
* Algorithm is first-fit.
*
* As part of the kernel evolution toward modular naming,
* the functions malloc and free are being renamed to rmalloc
* and rfree. Compatibility will be maintained by by the
* following assembler code: (also see free/rfree below).
*/
This matches the commentary that can be found *just above*
ulong_t atealloc()
in the source code file:
/*
* Allocate 'size' units from the given map.
* Return the base of the allocated space.
* In a map, the addresses are increasing and the
* list is terminated by a 0 size.
* Algorithm is first-fit.
*/
ulong_t atealloc()
3) It is reasonable to assume that the SCOX side, having longer
commentary, is actually derived from the Linux (sorry, SGI)
side. This should be confirmed though.
Can we assume that the source underneath the commentary on
the SCOX side is the same as on the Linux side? Not necessarily.
It's just a possibility.
4) Conclusion:
We see that SCOX likes to compare comments
We see that they found matching comments in a file A and file B
We see that that comment in file B came from GPL-ed code from SGI
We conclude that file A, having amended comment, might be
derived from GPL-ed code from SGI.
To do:
-> We need to know more about that 'kernel evolution toward
modular naming' operation. Who did it when and why and where? This
will shed light on whether that comment was added at SCOX or
not.
-> We need to know whether 'malloc' and 'free' were ever used in
precursors of ate_utils.c, which would explain why malloc and
free are mentioned in the commentary, not kmalloc and kfree. This
will shed light on whether that comment was added at SCOX or
not.
No further conclusions can be drawn, I guess.
OTOH, this is all to weird. Does SCOX intend to deliberately mislead
by throwing a smokescreen? After all, these are just badly obfuscated
comments, begging to be analyzed...
The words "Trust No One" come to mind...The SCOX files ??? LOOOOL! El Tonno[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 08:38 AM EDT |
PJ -- any possibility that we can get an attorney to give some general advice to
the community on the matter? A lot of people are worried about the idea of
being sued, even if SCO doesn't have a case. Jonathan Williams[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 08:53 AM EDT |
This just get's funnier and funnier. I came home late last night and skimmed
Bruce Perens comments about
finding the malloc.c code that the slides were mentioning. That is a "First Fit"
routine that can't seriously
be mentioned in the same sentence with copyright protection, while keeping a
straight face.
All I saw were the side by side comparisions of the comments (the one with the
Greek encoding). I just read
Greg Lehey's writeup. ROTFL There isn't even any code in common!
Even if the code had been copied identically, some courts have allowed revision
of as little as 30 percent
to "untaint" a work completely. Computer Associates International. Inc. v.
Altai. Inc., 775 F.Supp.
544(E.D.N.Y. 1991 ) aff'd F.2d (2nd Cir. 1992). Copyright in software is not
what a lot of you seem to think
it is. This non-infringing code together with the similar looking comment has
already been removed from the
Linux kernel anyway....;-) Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 08:59 AM EDT |
If your company gets threated by SCO, let us remember that Red Hat set up a
million dollar
defense fund and I think it is for just this purpose.
Also, I bet anything that if SCO starts suing customers, then the customers will
get together and file a class action countersuit. david l.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:07 AM EDT |
Did you forget the Red Hat Legal Defense fund? pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:07 AM EDT |
Cnet has a good interview w/Sterling ball of Ernie Ball, a guitar string
manufacturing company that is now all Linux. The interview is at:
http://news.com.com/2008-1082-
5065859.html
The quote I like about SCO is:
[Cnet Question]: Any thoughts on SCO's claims on Linux?
[Ball's Answer]: I don't know the merits of the lawsuit, but I run their Unix
and I'm taking it off that system. I just don't like the way it's being handled.
I feel like I'm being threatened again.
They never said anything to me, and if I was smart, I probably wouldn't mention
it. But I don't like how they're doing it. What they're doing is casting a
shadow over the whole Linux community. Look, when you've got Windows 98 not
being supported, NT not being supported, OS/2 not being supported--if you're a
decision maker in the IT field, you need to be able to look at Linux as
something that's going to continue to be supported. It's a major consideration
when you're making those decisions.
He has more comments that make the article a good read. GenWer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:08 AM EDT |
Did you forget the Red Hat Legal Defense fund? Rosen's tip about getting a
case joined to IBM's? pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:10 AM EDT |
On Greg Lehey's piece, he is rewriting it somewhat. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:15 AM EDT |
About getting sued.
Remember first the blustery, sputtering threats to audit AIX users.
Anyone can threaten to sue you at any time. Anyone can threaten to harm you
unless you pay them at any time.
First remember this- SCO Group CEO Darl McBride? stated clearly, succinctly and
with great conviction,
"Contracts are what you use against people you have a relationship with."
http://biz.yahoo.com/prn
ews/030528/law059_1.html
you won't just pay SCO. You'll have to sign a contract with them. Do you
really want to have anything to do with that man, that company?
You'll have to spell out for them your company's pattern of Linux usage. Do you
really want to divulge all that info to that man, that company?
More reasons not to sign up, even under the threat of a lawsuit are here -
Read this whole page (and please make improvements)
http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/SCOvsIBMSCOLicensingJustSayNO
Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:17 AM EDT |
I did, indeed. :) Jonathan Williams[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:20 AM EDT |
Forget, that is. Jonathan Williams[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:35 AM EDT |
So SCO is going to sue all the users, and everyone in the world who uses Linux
-- I think it is now up to about 18 million -- will pay them $199 or $699 or
whatever. SCO will make billions a year, and it will be an OS giant, the new
Microsoft.
Pretty amazing for a company that made $80 million last year, as I recall. And
pretty amazing that A&TT and Novell sold the rights to Unix for so little when
it is really worth so much. Nobody realized the copyrights are worth billions
and billions until our Great Leader Darl McBride came along.
Remember when McBride said SCO did not intend to destroy Linux? But if, when
you buy a copy of Mandrake for $39, you also have to pay $199 or $699 or $1399
to SCO, then who is going to buy Linux? Everyone would go to BSD. And if that
is the case, what happens to SCO's billions in profits? I suppose that McBride,
who has the answer for everything, will claim that SCO owns BSD. david l.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:51 AM EDT |
The part about hunting down users of Linux may refer to information given out by
servers or browsers as we serve or use the web. One could likely turn this off
or disquise it, but I feel if you are satisfied with Linux or proud to promote
its use, why not show it? Caldera also collected information from downloaders. I
presume SCO can access that... Robert
Pogson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:55 AM EDT |
{Delurk} I'm an IT director at a medium sized business and I've been
watching this case very carefully. I've been planning on migrating several of
our servers to Linux next year, as well as looking at rolling out Linux
desktops, where possible. My business has a subscription to Info-Tech Advisor
(infotechadvisor.com), and their latest "issue" had a impact analysis of SCO vs
Everyone. Bottom line was this:
"If you only have a few Linux installations, it may be easier and safer to just
pay SCO's fee. If you have an extensive installation, there's a lot more money
at stake. Meet with legal counsel and your executive immediately to assess your
situation. Have a representative contact SCO to clarify its intentions as well
as your liability."
This is exactly what SCO wants, IMO. Pay the 'just in case' fee, and SCO can
keep running off of small-to-mid size companies for a while. Luckily we have a
lawyer on retainer here, but it'd be nice if there was a "set defense" all these
small companies could use. Otherwise, a lot of people are going to take advice
like Info-Tech gave, and keep this farce going.
Btw, has anyone else noticed the lack of mainstream coverage on the German
photos and the open source community's findings? I figured ZDNN, CNET, or Eweek
would potentially have that listed on the front page. At least the Screen Savers
of TechTV mentioned it last night. Wolffen[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:57 AM EDT |
"The fact that SCO was selling Linux didn't convert all of its copyrights," he
said. "The fact that this stuff was in the Linux kernel wasn't known by SCO
until recently. You can't inadvertently, accidentally give away your copyright,"
Heise added. "The GPL says that the legal copyright owner has to assign
copyright to the GPL. SCO hasn't done that."
rant start ...
Didn't SCO claim that roughly 1/5 or more of kernel code was copy from SCO's
UNIX code? Then let me ask the question: How is it that SCO claims it did not
notice the code until recently? As I understand it, they claim there are over 1
million LOC yet they failed to notice 20% of the kernel source were theirs? How
the hell did they miss that?
I don't know about you folks, but if 20% of my stuff shows up in your stuff I
would have noticed and that would certainly raise my curiousity. Their
developers certainly work on kernel code everyday and they want me to believe
that they didn't notice it until McBride started to wonder why Linux is getting
better so fast and launched an investigation to come up with some bullshit like
their code is the Linux kernel?
rant stop ... Quan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:06 AM EDT |
Wolffen's:
"If you only have a few Linux installations, it may be easier and safer to just
pay SCO's fee."
Glad to hear you didn't buy that. I have never seen anyone advise publicly that
it may be
"easier and safer" to just pay those big guys in suits and dark glasses that are
hanging
around you front door demanding money from you because "something could always
happen".
People do it of course - it's "easier and safer" - but it's not safer for very
long. El Tonno[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:11 AM EDT |
I'm going to send $1 to each of the Fortune 500...just in case. It's easier and
safer than trying to figure out if I have somehow offended Procter & Gamble or
General Electric. And for sure I've somehow stolen something from Microsoft
that I'm not aware of, and I do manage to use the alphabet each day and that's
bound to be somebody's patent by now. Wait, I use a calculator, and that has to
involve intellectual property, knowing which buttons to push. Oops, I saw a
show on television last night -- better pay up for stealing some IP into my
brain. Note to self: Make it $2 each. Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:13 AM EDT |
SAMBA team performs a necessary bitch-slap
http://linuxtoday.com
/developer/2003082001326OSCYNT MajorLeePissed[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:16 AM EDT |
"The fact that SCO was selling Linux didn't convert all of its copyrights," he
said. "The fact that this stuff was in the Linux kernel wasn't known by SCO
until recently. You can't inadvertently, accidentally give away your copyright,"
Heise added. "The GPL says that the legal copyright owner has to assign
copyright to the GPL. SCO hasn't done that."
Aside from the misunderstanding of the GPL (under the GPL, you don't assign your
copyright to anyone else, just give rights to others to modify and distribute
your work), this is precisely the "pregnant cow defense" that's been discussed
and debunked here by legal types, correct? Jonathan Williams[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:17 AM EDT |
Headline: Users and resellers say SCO's news is good news
Cock-eyed ComputerWorld writer shows that a free room and Forum-All-Areas pass
can still buy you a lot of press.
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,84184,00.html
Todd Wiess (todd_weiss@computerworld.com)
presents this wonderfully balanced article and demonstrates to the world that
when it comes to SCO, we should all just turn that frown upside down®. Belzecue[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:18 AM EDT |
So SCO-scum hasn't noticed that 20% of the Linux code was copied from SCO-scum's
UNIX - since 2001? Despite the fact that IBM could depose and compel to testify
any number of SCO-scum and ex-SCO-scum developers who were assigned by SCO-scum
to work on the Linux kernel? Keep up the good work, Heise! Next time I take
somebody to court, I'll make sure to recommend your services to him, Heise!
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right:
auto;">blacklight[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:25 AM EDT |
Is there any potential difference, from a legal standpoint, between what the
"pregnant cow defense" covered (physical property) and rights to
distribute/modify code freely?
In other words, could a reasonable court find that the unintentional, accidental
distribution of "their" alleged code by SCO for over two years, continuing even
after they were on about infringing code, merits the anullment of the licensing
terms under which SCO distributed the code?
Or are they just whining? Jonathan Williams[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
Apparently, the US military branches are a subsidiary of SCO, which would help
explain the invasion of Iraq. As ancient Sumaria, which is now known as Iraq,
was the birth place of writing systems, it would seem that SCO is attempting to
acquire the copyrights and patents for written language, therefore claiming IP
infringement and license fees for all derivitave works (i.e., everything).
Unfortunately, I had to pay SCO $599 to write this comment, $299 to look at my
keyboard, $799 to actually type and as I run a dual-monitor system, I have
entered into an indentured servitude contract with SCO for the remainder of my
life. Tazer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:34 AM EDT |
SCO's ghosts of Christmas past (define and apply): Business Law 101, innocent
3rd party consumer, agent, principle (as in self-described IP principle), actual
authority, ostensible authority, ostensible agent, acquiescence! Enough said -
now go figure it out- exam tomorrow at the opening time and place of your
nearest court house (this notice has been sponsored by SCO, Microsoft, and
Sun)! annon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:36 AM EDT |
> They can't mention the NDA because the slides that were photographed where not
shown under an NDA.
Actually I read somewhere everybody who came to the conference had to sign an
NDA to see that presentation. I don't know from personal knowledge.
Maybe it's just me, but I think it would be pretty to stupid to mention it
(which doesn't mean SCO wouldn't - and I hope they would). If they issued a
press release saying something along the lines of "You're not supposed to
examine our evidence, it's under NDA.", this could be useful to their opponents
later, I think.
Regarding being sued, I still think unless you are in the news for Linux, or a
fortune 500 type company, SCO are going to have a hard job finding you. It's
also worth remembering they have only $10m or so in cash - so that's not going
to make it easy for them to pursue many cases at once. And if they did sue you,
I expect IBM/RedHat/FSF to be all over it. And why approach them first, wait to
see if they come to you (and I don't mean some form mail sent to everybody) -
even if they do - they're going to start by offering you a "license". IANAL, so
this isn't legal advice, just my opinion.
Regarding the lines of code, and 20%-40%. I agree with the point, how could they
not notice. It's like if Stephen King read somebody's book, and didn't notice
every 3rd or 4th chapter was one of his.
Additionally, if they think 20%-40% of Linux 2.4 infringes, and Linux 2.2
doesn't infringe at all - is that even possible (I don't know). My point, at
this rate, the lines that they claim, wll be greater than the difference between
2.2 and 2.4 quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
> Or are they just whining?
IANAL, but my opinion is yes they are whining. If there is negiglence and the
pregnant cow defense flies, AND they get damages - it would seem they would be
claiming damages largely or completely caused by their own negligence. That
hardly seems just or equitable. I hope any judge or jury would see that.
Regarding mainstream press, the guys who really need to pick this up are
Jonathan Berr (sp?) Bloomberg who wrote that piece that feature in Salt Lake
Tribune (and elsewhere) about stock selling, and Lee Gomes (WSJ) who analyzed
their last teleconference pretty well. I think address for Gomes is lee.gomes@wsj.com (found it in google based
on a lucky guess) quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:45 AM EDT |
Blzecue: I'm just surprised that no one has yet brought up the point that SCO
probably doesn't care if their "software" business survives. With a billion in
the bank, who cares what business SCO does? They'll go after
billions more.
The idiots in the article you link to are just too dumb to see that. Heck, the
one who has many customers moving from SCO to Linux and Sun should be helping
them do so, and picking up more secure business that way. What an idiot.
Vip Vip[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:46 AM EDT |
David L. "I suppose that McBride, who has the answer for everything, will claim
that SCO owns BSD."
Search the amicus brief for the text [fn6] then [fn13]
Read section [fn6] and then [fn13] thru [fn14].
The testimony of USL's Mitzi Bond and AT&T's Director of Licensing, Otis Wilson
about the ownership
of Unix derivatives are very enlightening. These AT&T witnesses testified they
didn't own any derivatives
unless they incorporated at least some AT&T code.
A lot of the controversey was over differences in Berkeley's rights to derive
32V - which it felt was in
entirely in the public domain anyway - and the new licensing terms of System V.
Either way AT&T's license
would have (at worst) required that Berkeley distribute any of their own
proprietary enhancements and
modifications (to the extent that they didn't include AT&T code) to anyone
without restriction on use,
copying, or further distribution. That's hardly the interpretation SCO seems to
put on things now is it?
http://cm.be
ll-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/930107.amicus.txt Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:48 AM EDT |
Oh and one other thing I just remembered,
http
://www.cbronline.com/latestnews/62cbf9d13b40711e80256d880018c80f
Quotes from Heise and Sontag
Anyway they say they're going to start with somebody who uses all of
AIX/Dynix/Linux. If that ain't guaranteed to draw an IBM legal response, I don't
know what is. And, if you don't have all 3, you *might* be safe for now - not a
legal opinion, IANAL - just pragmatic comment.
I forget which article about SCO suing Linux customers, but there was one which
said something about talking to their own largest customers about the issue. I'm
not sure, but I think it sounded at least possible that they might try suing one
of their own customers for buying SCO's own product - gee, I do hope they do. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:49 AM EDT |
I am wondering which pending lawsuit would be better to attach to in the case
SCOG does actually take you to court.
SCOG vs. IBM as originally stated was a breach of contract suit.
RedHat vs. SCOG seems to fall along the lines of intelectual property.
Any thoughts? Leonard[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:50 AM EDT |
Wolffen,
was that the extent of the advice? "Pay up"?
Or was there more nuance, like
"If SCO does not know you exist, keep it that way."
"If you get an invoice or a phone call, first get a receptionist to call some
law enforcement agencies and register complaints,"
"Then send SCO requests for more documentation, keep delaying SCO until they
issue an ultimatum"
"then if it's a pittance pay it, but also consider the risk that your name will
get out and others will be calling on you with 'pay us or be sued' scams'
If the advice was a simplistic "pay up", would you be willing to email this
newletter writer back, suggesting that his advice is not the most prudent, and
adding either my advice or your own? Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:57 AM EDT |
Harlan's link http://cm.be
ll-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/930107.amicus.txt
Excellent! PJ, you need to write about this I think!
No doubt IBM lawyers no about it, but it'd be even better if everybody did,
including a decent analysis for us non-legal types. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
The pregnant cow case was a contract matter, not a license. The GPL is a
license, not a contract. Look in SCO Archives. Or, let me: http://radio.weblogs.com
/0120124/2003/07/23.html
Attorney Dan Ravicher comments on that case in that article.
I'll have a search function in the new site. That will help.
Gomes has been a true reporter. If I was going to email anyone, I'd email his
boss and tell him how great he is, because SCO attacked him, you know. If
anyone puts anyone's email address here, please follow this form: soandso at
suchandsuch.com, not @suchandsuch.com. I'd hate to repay him with spam from
bots crawling the site. Thanks. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 11:11 AM EDT |
Sorry about the email thing PJ
This is from Harlan's link
-- START
The contracts, letters and
communications between the University and AT&T, when read
together, prove the University's ownership over its enhancements
and modifications of AT&T code and illuminate what limitations
actually were imposed on the University's public software
distributions. Those limitations are much narrower than what USL
now claims.
As early as 1978, the University informed Western Electric
(AT&T'ssubsidiary) that it was receiving requests by non-Western
Electric licensees for software the University had derived from
early versions of AT&T's UNIX. Exhibit A, attached to the Shapreau
Decl. Western Electric's response to the University's inquiry
regarding its distribution of derivative software to non-licensees
set the precedent for the future:
[W]e take no position with regard to your use or distribution of
software developed by you which does *not contain* any of our
proprietary information such as, without limitation, the computer
programs and documentation, or any portion thereof, related to the
UNIX Operating System, including methods and concepts utilized
therein. (Emphasis added.) Exhibit B, attached to the Shapreau Decl.
Mr. Edwin Baldwin, then Director of Licensing at Western Electric
who signed Exhibit B, admitted that any University enhancements
which did not "include our computer programs or documentation or
the methods and concepts ... would appear not to be governed by the
Software License Agreement." Baldwin Depo., at 125:8-128:11. In
other words, as long as programs developed by the University from
UNIX did notcontain UNIX code, documentation or trade secrets, AT&T
had no objection to public dissemination. [fn6]
-- END QUOTE
Add my emphasis last sentence (sorry don't know how to do that cool HTML stuff -
please nobody explain - I don't want to clutter the discussion)
So my thoughts, are (IANAL so could be misunderstanding!):
1. is the side letter which IBM have saying IBM owns their own modifications
enhancements (published in SCO's site, I think it says "derivates developed by
you" or similar), like JFS etc., generically apply to all AT&T licensees. It
does seem to me, that it looks like it at least applies to University of
California too, and perhaps they think/thought it was generic ("set the
precedent for the future")
2. To my reading, AT&T seem to have already (to some degree at least) given up
on general methods and concepts, and hard restricted their position to don't
copy code or documents developed by AT&T quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 11:13 AM EDT |
Specifically in relation to the boston.com article, that was previously
mentioned:
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/08/20/sco_underc
uts_its_linux_case
I find it amusing that SCO will show source code from Linux, that is,
supposedly, an identical copy of the code they own. They put both examples up,
side by side on a slide projector. The amusing part is that the Linux code is
displayed with comments and code, yet the SCO code has only displayed the
comments and the code was rendered into Greek.
Now, it would seem that if the Linux portion was identical, then they went out
of their way to simultaneously obfuscate and display their code to the viewers.
It can also be interpreted that the code they obfuscated wasn't identical to
Linux and they surely couldn't have their captive audience viewing anomolies of
that sort.
'Here's some code from Linux that is IDENTICAL to SCO source code, and over here
it the IDENTICAL SCO source code, translated to another language and obfuscated
so that you don't see our intellectual property. However that copy on the right
isn't our intellectual property, so you can view it. No wait, don't view it
either. It's definately ours, but it's strangely not in Greek.' Tazer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
Sanjeev,
This is the entirety of the 3rd part of their "action plan" they advise:
"At the end of the day, your organization needs to assess its liability risk. If
you only have a few Linux installations, it may be easier and safer to just pay
SCO's fee. If you have an extensive installation, there's a lot more money at
stake. Meet with legal counsel and your executive immediately to assess your
situation. Have a representative contact SCO to clarify its intentions as well
as your liability." (Copyright Info-Tech Advisor)
The first 2 steps tell you to conduct a Linux inventory, and review plans to
install Linux, and possibly delay any major installations until after the
lawsuits with IBM and Redhat have concluded. Pretty much what SCO and MS would
like to see. Info-Tech's main theme about this is what I've seen repeated here
and elsewhere: "consult a lawyer." The part about paying up just in case was a
bit surprising though. Wolffen[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 11:35 AM EDT |
Something else from Harlan's link made me think. I think if you get yourself a
copy of SCO Linux with a GPL license, you *might* be safe. IANAL, so this ain't
legal advice, and I could be wrong! Here is the quote that inspired this
thought:
-- START QUOTE
The law is clear that the authority to copy, distribute or display a
copyrighted work granted by a license agreement is an absolute
defense to a claim of copyright infringement. See, Effects
Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555,558 (9th Cir. 1990) (company
which created and delivered footage at request of movie maker
impliedly granted movie maker non-exclusive license to incorporate
footage into movie, and thus movie maker did not infringe on maker's
copyright);Apple Computer. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 717 F. Supp. 1428,
1432 (N.D. Cal. 1989)(to the extent license agreement authorizes the
use of visual displays, it provides a defense to infringement claims
based on the use of such visual displays).
-- END QUOTE quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 11:38 AM EDT |
Oh and another Harlan link quote, relevant to derivates containing no actual
UNIX code (I'm thinking JFS)
--in November 1985, the new software boiler plate which AT&T
claims superseded prior licenses acknowledged that AT&T "claims
no ownership interest in any portion of such a modification or
derivative work" that does not include AT&T code Exhibit G, attached
to the Shapreau Decl.]; quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 11:57 AM EDT |
Thanks, PJ -- still new here, but I'll check the archives in the future.
So, as I read it, the "pregnant cow" case isn't especially germane to the
situation thanks to the fact that it covered a contract that had not yet been
executed, it covered a situation in which both parties were making a contract
under fundamentally mistaken notions, SCO/Caldera had a responsibility and the
unlimited ability to determine the facts of the matter yet didn't, and the GPL
isn't a contract in the first place, correct?
I guess I need to read more to find out what case law would apply, and
under what situations courts have allowed companies, in effect, a "do over",
saved them from their own negligence, and hurt lots of other people in the
process. Jonathan Williams[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 12:23 PM EDT |
Face it, being sued sucks. There really isn't much you can do about it once you
are sued. First, if you know what you're doing, you have to file an Answer to
SCO's complaint. This is followed by a fair amount of maneuvering, which moves
through setting the trial date, motions, discovery, etc. It's why insurance
companies often settle 'nuisance' suits (lawsuits without much or any merit) -
lawsuits are expensive and it's always risky to leave everything to a jury.
In this situation, in my opinion, you'd have to be a relatively large company
for SCO to go after, and I believe they will sue an end user. Why? Despite what
McBride says, ALL lawsuits take forever, so if you're SCO, you make your list,
check it twice, pick someone and sue. Then you sit back and say, "See, now
you've forced us to sue! Better start sending those license checks to SCO!"
What's cheaper, buying SCO licenses or defending a lawsuit? I am sure many
current Linux users would pay up, and other would-be Linux users will go with
another OS.
So, the FUD will continue to support the pump-n-dump, SCOSource licensing
revenue will continue to increase, and SCO will drag its feet on every lawsuit
in which it is involved. In this case, SCO doesn't have to win, they merely have
to present a case that is credible enough to avoid punitive sanctions. By the
time the fat lady sings, they will have converted their FUD revenue into a more
traditional business plan and will most likely do very much better than they
were doing prior to catching lawsuit fever. Did you really expect justice?
Rob Rob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 12:38 PM EDT |
Being sued sucks; being extorted sucks too. It is best to avoid both.
IANAL, but the advice to hide and seek cover and hope SCO misses you makes
perfect sense. Seek legal advice the moment you get the first letter from
SCO. It will cost you money, but you'll be prevented from making stupid
mistakes.
We would like to stay informed on SCO's actions... MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 12:39 PM EDT |
quatermass: Mere methods and concepts aren't protected by copyright, but are
made moot in several other ways.
They were published in ACM magazine by DMR & KT of Bell Labs.
http://cm.bell-labs.com/c
m/cs/who/dmr/cacm.html
The clause that added "methods and concepts" Western Electric License para 4.05
was later deleted by AT&T
(the amicus brief [fn6]), the confidentiality clause wasn't an obligation for
any technical information that was then available to the public, or any that
subsequently became available from a third-party source
(Western Electric license para 4.06).
http://cm
.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/licenses/6thEdlicence.pdf
Berkeley rightly held that UNIX 32V was in the public domain. The legal basis
for that claim remains valid
today - despite Caldera's lame attempts to re-assert copyright under a BSD-like
license. I would imagine
all it would take is one Project Guttenberg-like posting of the 32V source and
RedHat's assurance that their Legal Defense fund can be used to defend that sort
of thing.
IBM's side letter is applicable and is a SCO v IBM Exhibit. The amicus brief
simply shows that AT&T had
contacted all of it's licensees and offered the same interpretation of the
language. It so happens that
IBM's agreement is dated February 1, 1985 and the mass mailing was conducted the
following August.
amicus.txt
[fn13] It appears that AT&T similarly tried to restrict other
licensees' rights with respect to code they derived from AT&T's
UNIX, because AT&T sent out a clarification to all its licensees in
August, 1985 which stated: "Section 2.01. The last sentence was
added to assure licensees that AT&T will claim ownership in the
software that they developed -- only the portion of the software
developed by AT&T."
IBM has additional rights under Amendment X (the three party Novell/SCO/IBM
contract) Para. 6. "the second to
the last sentence of paragraph 9 of the February 1, 1985 amendment to SOFT-00015
is modified by deleting the
words: and employess of Licensee shall not refer to the physical documents and
materials comprising Software
Products subject to this Agreement when they are developing any such products or
services or providing any
such service." Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 01:07 PM EDT |
Harlan, I realize that methods and concepts is not part of copyright law, which
aims at protecting the expression not the idea. However SCO's public claims
include claims about UNIX methods and concepts as they relate to IBM and other
AT&T licensees. The point I make, being it looks to me, IANAL, as being AT&T
gave up these rights
IANAL (still!) that AT&T gave up all rights to enhancements or modifications
made by all licensees, not just IBM. So it seems clear that SCO should not be
claiming some kind of "control rights" on IBM, SGI, etc.
IANAL (still!), 32V point is well-taken. If public domain, then BSD-style
license on that code might be legitimate if obtained from that source at that
time - and gives Linux rights, but further more, if a different copy is public
domain - people can use that freely. My example: I can use public domain works
in my own books (say a collection of Shakespeare plays perhaps with commentary
of my own added) - evem copyright my book - but I can't stop other people also
using the same underlying public domain works in their stuff too. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 01:07 PM EDT |
Harlan, I realize that methods and concepts is not part of copyright law, which
aims at protecting the expression not the idea. However SCO's public claims
include claims about UNIX methods and concepts as they relate to IBM and other
AT&T licensees. The point I make, being it looks to me, IANAL, as being AT&T
gave up these rights
IANAL (still!) that AT&T gave up all rights to enhancements or modifications
made by all licensees, not just IBM. So it seems clear that SCO should not be
claiming some kind of "control rights" on IBM, SGI, etc.
IANAL (still!), 32V point is well-taken. If public domain, then BSD-style
license on that code might be legitimate if obtained from that source at that
time - and gives Linux rights, but further more, if a different copy is public
domain - people can use that freely. My example: I can use public domain works
in my own books (say a collection of Shakespeare plays perhaps with commentary
of my own added) - evem copyright my book - but I can't stop other people also
using the same underlying public domain works in their stuff too. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
Harlan, I realize that methods and concepts is not part of copyright law, which
aims at protecting the expression not the idea. However SCO's public claims
include claims about UNIX methods and concepts as they relate to IBM and other
AT&T licensees. The point I make, being it looks to me, IANAL, as being AT&T
gave up these rights
IANAL (still!) that AT&T gave up all rights to enhancements or modifications
made by all licensees, not just IBM. So it seems clear that SCO should not be
claiming some kind of "control rights" on IBM, SGI, etc.
IANAL (still!), 32V point is well-taken. If public domain, then BSD-style
license on that code might be legitimate if obtained from that source at that
time - and gives Linux rights, but further more, if a different copy is public
domain - people can use that freely. My example: I can use public domain works
in my own books (say a collection of Shakespeare plays perhaps with commentary
of my own added) - evem copyright my book - but I can't stop other people also
using the same underlying public domain works in their stuff too. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
http://m
oneycentral.msn.com/investor/srs/srsmain.asp?Symbol=SCOX quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 01:19 PM EDT |
Hunsaker notes "We're fighting for the right in the industry to be able to make
a living with software...".
He misses a basic fact of life... nobody has the "right" to make a living in a
particular industry.
Nowhere in the Constitution nor in the laws of the land is SCO guaranteed the
"right" to make money
selling software. If they can do so, fine. However, they're not guaranteed
this.
If SCO prevails on this theory, I think the TV stations in this land should file
suit against all
their competitors (cable TV, satellite TV, Internet broadcasters, etc) to
eliminate industry
competition in their favor. It makes about as much sense. Steve Martin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 01:31 PM EDT |
"We would like to stay informed on SCO's actions..."
Absolutely. Isn't this again an appropriate for the well-known citation:
"We have to hang together or we will all hang separately"
The SCOX-Repellent-Howto is yet something that's missing at the Linux
Documentation Projet!!! El Tonno[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 01:31 PM EDT |
I just read some Sontag and Stowell quotes on lwn.net (the All SCO story)
It seems their counter argument boils down to (with no published evidence or
data to support them)
1. Perens' assertions are wrong
2. It's his word against ours
3. SCO knows where the code came from, and it was added in appropriately.
4. SCO owns the code quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 01:37 PM EDT |
"Cnet has a good interview w/Sterling ball of Ernie Ball, a guitar string
manufacturing company that is now all Linux."
Go Ernie! Ernie Ball Super Slinkies are the only strings I have ever used on my
guitars. Good to see someone who isn't intimidated by SCO.
Now, if you look at the slides, you'll notice that all that is shown are
comments. What makes this important is that these comments are NOT code
comments! They are function descriptions. Anyone remember all the way back to
the good old days of reverse engineering Apple II ROMs or PC BIOS ROMs? They
were legal as long as they were "clean." What made reverse engineered ROMs
clean? You have two teams: the first team took publicly available function
descriptions, then wrote psuedo-code algorithms describing how the actual
function code worked. These were then passed on to the second team who took the
function descriptions and psuedo-code and made actual code that did the same
thing.
Since the slides only display the function descriptions and SOME of the Linux
code, this could have simply been a 100% legally reverse engineered function.
Without the SCO code, there's no way to tell. The point is that function
comments mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when it comes to "proving" copied code. If SCO
had shown some comments in the middle of a function, that would be different,
but they didn't.
From an programming point of view, SCO's so-called proof is a complete wash,
regardless of where it came from or what copyright messages had or had not been
included. J.F.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 01:38 PM EDT |
"We're fighting for the right in the industry to be able to make a living with
software..."
Yo! Somehow this citation reminds me of the big Luddite unrests at the beginning
the industrialization, British Empire, 1840 or so. Jarring changes as people had
to
move from the countryside to the city and manual labor was being replaced by
machines.
Don't try to read too much into this association, though, I'm probably just
tired.
I'll shut up now. El Tonno[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 01:51 PM EDT |
Another version of boston.com story, I think with more Perens (didn't do a line
by line compare). Sontag quote here too
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wxxi/news.newsmain?action=article
&ARTICLE_ID=536151 quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 01:56 PM EDT |
RE: SCO is fighting for the right to make money... bla, bla, bla!
- If the railroad companies wished, they could have brought out their
intellectual property claims to the wheel, or made one and defended their right
to make money and prvented the the automobile or truck from taking over. The
same is true for the blacksmiths of old- they would have loved to kept wheels,
that travel on compacted soil covered roads, turning only on horse-and-buggy (no
pun intended) technology. annon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
quatermass: AT&T gave up the methods and concepts clause for Unix Version Six
not Systen V. I think that they
did give up any claim to the derivatives of all the 1985 licensees.
50 percent of System V was derived from BSD, which was made available to the
public, and even licensed by
AT&T. The remaining 50 percent was largely contained in the Unix 32V (for VAX).
Caldera is claiming copyright
in 32V here based on an AT&T registration filed fourteen years after it started
distributing it in an
unlimited fashion to the public without any copyright notice:
http://www.tuhs.org/Archi
ve/Caldera-license.pdf
32V is the same version that Berkeley based all of their distributions and work
on. If it was ever in the
public domain, then it still is, and no license is required. Here is what the
California Regents said:
C. USL FORFEITED ITS COPYRIGHT PROTECTION IN 32V WHEN IT
PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTED 32V WITHOUT A COPYRIGHT NOTICE
USL's 32V code was created in 1978. DeFazio Decl., Exh. F. USL
forfeited its copyright protection for 32V when its predecessors,
Western Electric and AT&T, distributed 32V to the public without a
copyright notice (McKusick Decl, at Para. 4 and Joint Decl., at Para.
28.4) and failed to register 32V until 1992, fourteen years after
32V was first published. [fn21]
[fn21] Unlike USL's 32V, post-Berne Convention Implementation Act
works, created after March 1, 1989, are not required to have a
copyright notice. 17 U.S.C. Section 405.
Under the 1976 Copyright Act, omission of a copyright notice from
copies publicly distributed by the copyright owner invalidates the
copyright in the work unless (1) notice has been omitted from a
small number of copies[fn22], (2)registration is made within five
years after publication without notice, or (3) notice was omitted in
violation of an express requirement in writing. 17 U.S.C. Section
405(a).Here, USL can find no refuge in any of the three exceptions
under 405(a) because thousands of copies of 32V were publicly
distributed without copyright notices and registration followed
publication by fourteen years. To the University's knowledge, no
express requirement by Western Electric that notice be included in
32V was violated. In fact, Western Electric intentionally removed
copyright notices from every file contained in 32V prior to
publication. McKusick Decl., at Para. 4.
and [fn22]...
http://cm.be
ll-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/930107.amicus.txt Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
> quatermass: AT&T gave up the methods and concepts clause for Unix Version Six
not Systen V
Yes but if the same method and concept is in Version Six and System V, they
presumably can't retrospectively take it back. In any case, how could they prove
which one of the same method and concept (found in both version 6 and system V)
would be the origin, even if they could? I mean, it's the older stuff that is
even more widely available, so more likely to be the source of a particular
method and concept
And if I'm following all this correctly (which I'm not sure I am!), we're only
talking about methods and concepts that originated at AT&T. Methods and concepts
in the works by licensees which were added to their implements [JFS], are not
part of anything AT&T laid claim to, except for a brief flirtation, which was
quickly dropped. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 02:27 PM EDT |
Another thing, I just read the 1978 Edn of K&R C book has the code in question
and says it's freely usuable without restriction (or similar words). Can
somebody confirm this?
If true, that would now give Linux something like 5 "good" sources: K&R book,
public domain old Unix, BSD'd old unix, another BSD'd old unix (by Caldera), and
BSD quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 02:28 PM EDT |
> quatermass: AT&T gave up the methods and concepts clause for Unix Version Six
not Systen V
Yes but if the same method and concept is in Version Six and System V, they
presumably can't retrospectively take it back. In any case, how could they prove
which one of the same method and concept (found in both version 6 and system V)
would be the origin, even if they could? I mean, it's the older stuff that is
even more widely available, so more likely to be the source of a particular
method and concept
And if I'm following all this correctly (which I'm not sure I am!), we're only
talking about methods and concepts that originated at AT&T. Methods and concepts
in the works by licensees which were added to their implements [JFS], are not
part of anything AT&T laid claim to, except for a brief flirtation, which was
quickly dropped. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 02:53 PM EDT |
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case
http://www.technewswor
ld.com/perl/story/31386.html
Talking heads here, including Yankee Group.
In response, Chris Sontag, SCO's senior vice president and general manager of
SCO Source, told TechNewsWorld that the company has now unveiled the offending
code and that it can be remedied.
"The vast majority of the code [in violation] is the derivative work from IBM,
so that's a great place to start," Sontag stated. "We're talking about more than
one million lines of code that can be remedied."
Linux advocate: More SCO evidence flawed
http://ww
w.infoworld.com/article/03/08/20/HNscomoreflaws_1.html
Interestingly this is an example of "obfuscated" code according to SCO, but the
developer speaks about how he did it in this article quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:02 PM EDT |
quatermass: "...we're only talking about methods and concepts that originated at
AT&T." Yes and no. We are looking for any disclaimers or exemptions we can find
from AT&T/USL or Novell because they own the patents, not SCO. Next any
assertion of patent-like claims from SCO may amount to "copyright misuse". The
"copyrights"
SCO owns in System V are vanishingly small if reduced by the amount of code in
BSD and 32V anyway.
To the extent that this demo really has anything to do with a "First Fit"
(malloc.c) alogorithm, I see little
need to find a license anyway. Something like bin sorting just isn't protected
by copyright anyway. Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:18 PM EDT |
http://www.eweek.com/
article2/0,3959,1227128,00.asp
this is very unusual for linus.i think he has about ran out of patience with all
the loose accusations.
br3n brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:21 PM EDT |
Check out this
http://www.perens.com/SCO/SCO
SlideShow.html
Says the original algorithm originates in Knuth. Funny that, I read that
speculation before in a lwn.net comment - so maybe somebody knew?
The two examples really do seem to fit what was reported in Byte, Ian Lance
Taylor (sp?), and that German guy who didn't sign an NDA [who spoke about the
switch statements being similar] quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:21 PM EDT |
From the Tech News World link from quatermass:
"Yankee Group senior analyst Dana Gardner"
A senior analyst from the Yankee Group, and no DiDio? Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:32 PM EDT |
My favorite line:
"Torvalds: They [SCO] are smoking crack." Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:38 PM EDT |
The more recent Perens article (http://www.perens.com/SCO/SCO
SlideShow.html) is a much more convincing rebuttal of the SCO presentation.
Can anyone see any flaws in it? I like it much more than the half-baked
arguments circulating yesterday. Dr Drake[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
Gardner commented on SCO before too, and was less gushing than DiDio. Then DiDio
returned with the usual type comments in praise of Darl. So I wouldn't bet the
farm that DiDio won't do it again. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:46 PM EDT |
Drake - I didn't think the argument was significantly different, but I agree the
new one is better written and more comprehensive. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:49 PM EDT |
http://ww
w.businessweek.com/technology/cnet/stories/5066410.htm quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:55 PM EDT |
Finally! We all know we all the Knuth. Supa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:57 PM EDT |
"In response, Chris Sontag, SCO's senior vice president and general manager of
SCO Source, told TechNewsWorld that the company has now unveiled the offending
code and that it can be remedied."
http://www.technewswor
ld.com/perl/story/31386.html
Does anyone know where this "unvieled code" can actually be viewed? Or are they
simply claiming ownership of the German publication?
Here is why I think someone needs to propose to publish 32V online as a work "in
the public domain", and ask a court for a declaratory judgment regarding the
validity of it's copyright (a federal case of actual controversy):
Start extract...
Albert said that regardless of how old the code in question is, SCO does hold
the copyright that goes back to the origins of Unix. The company has been
arguing that the case hinges mainly on whether Linux is a derivative of Unix.
"Unix is an old operating system, so it's been around a while, but that doesn't
necessarily mean SCO has less of an issue with it," said Albert. "The argument
is not that SCO created these portions; even if they didn't, they still own the
copyright on it."
SCO's Sontag rejected claims that the copied code dates back to the origins of
Unix, citing SCO's several-year-old System V version 4.1 as the main version of
software where illegal copying occurred.
end extract ...
System VR4 is not very far removed from it's BSD and 32V predecessors. Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:05 PM EDT |
Whoa! Check out this quote from the Business Week link:
" Michael Heise, a partner with Boies, Schiller, & Flexner who's representing
SCO, downplayed concerns that the contested code may be covered by an
open-source license. In an interview with CNET News.com at the SCO show, Heise
said that even if, hypothetically, some older Caldera code were open source, it
wouldn't make a difference to the case.
"Let's say you have a hundred files, and you put one of your hundred files under
the GPL. That doesn't mean you've lost the rights to your other 99 files," Heise
said. "So I don't think it's going to have an impact."
Did I read what I think I just read? Did the legal counsel for SCO just admit
that if you place code under the GPL and distribute it you then lose the right
to that code except as specified by the GPL? Doesn't this contradict what SCO
keeps saying about the GPL, that it isn't really enforceable? Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:15 PM EDT |
The ECommerce Times has a funny graphic:
http://www
.ecommercetimes.com/images/story-sco-undercuts-1.jpg
for this article:
http://www.ecommercet
imes.com/perl/story/31386.html David Person[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:17 PM EDT |
Argh sorry for the brain skippage, lol.
Bit tired and buzzed this evening.
What I meant to say...
Finally, we all know the Knuth! Supa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:19 PM EDT |
hey, i found a pic of didio. perpare yourself
http://windowsadvan
tage.com/images/artwork/ldidio.jpg nexex[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:25 PM EDT |
Now that end users are involved, we should consider a class action suit against
Linux booksellers--here's why:
-- the weak point of the GPL will probably prove to be the disclaimer of
warranty. A court might hold that unconscionable as an industry practice.
-- this could drive a wedge between Linux distribution commercially (by XXX XXX
[tm], say) and non commercial. A court might hold, for example, that XXX XXX or
IBM really must warrant their distribution.
-- even if SCO loses, dredging this up could be a problem.
-- we need to mobilize more than just software distributors. Right now, McBride
is saying his actions are pro-business. Actually, he is for some businesses
(SCO, proprietary model software distribution) against other business segments
and models. O'Reilly, McGraw-Hill and friends make more money off of Linux than
SCO ever dreamed of.
-- one way to mobilize an industry segment is to scare it with legal risk. If
Linux violates copyright, so do the booksellers who distribute it. Part of the
reason I pay $40 for a Linux book is the convenience of not downloading Linux
(or paying XXX XXX [tm] prices).
-- the business press will wake up if it looks like a software publisher vs.
book publisher fight. Especially the part of the press that is owned by book
publishers.... Suddenly McBride won't be a business hero. He'll be a threat.
-- how to enlist the booksellers? Sue 'em. Class action. They're exposing us to
risk, selling us copyrighted material they have no right to distribute, and
disclaiming all warranty too.
Why should we pay $40-100 prices for bad stuff? John Goodwin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:25 PM EDT |
She writes for, or is somehow connected to, Windows Advantage? Why am I not a
bit surprised.. Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:27 PM EDT |
Supa,
I knew what you meant, and enjoyed the Knuth pun very much. I was able to parse
your original sentence because the human brain, unlike spectrum analysts looking
at code, can decipher meaning from fog. :) Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:28 PM EDT |
I'm still trying to download the PowerPoint slides from Bruce Perens' web site -
does anyone know if they are hosted on a faster server anywhere? These were
apparently obtained without NDA and just rely on the symbol font
"encryption".
Having discovered that the library at work had a 1st edn copy of K&R I've now
looked for the first example in both that and my second edition copy. There is a
similar algorithm on P187 of the 2nd edition (also in 1st edn but that's at work
so no Page no.) but I can't find the exact code. could people please either give
a Page No. or stop saying it is in K&R as as far as I can see only the algorithm
is in K&R, not the same code.
A lot of people (not specifically here) seem to be getting confused now about
the first example being SGI code contributed by HP. Remember SCO always said
that their code viewing circus was not about the IBM code but contributions by
other IHVs into which class both SGI and HP fit. I'll make a bit of a guess here
and suggest that as most kernel developers didn't have Itanium kit at the time
that code was committed the chap from HP who added it was the maintainer of the
arch/ia64 area and someone from SGI submitted it to him. That is at least one
possibility to address the issue of how this code got in.
Also if anyone hasn't read the eWeek article Brenda linked I'd recommend it - I
agree with her that Linus sounds upset. Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:59 PM EDT |
From one of the link on Perens' SCOSlideShow...
http://ww
w.infoworld.com/article/03/08/20/HNscomoreflaws_1.html
"SCO disputed Perens' claims. "We're the owners of the Unix (AT&T) System V
code, and so we would know what it would look like," he said.
SCO strongly claims the intimate knowledge of UNIX System V code. I would love
to hear them explain to the judge and the jury how these alleged code got into
Linux without being detected by its developers looking at the Linux kernel
everyday for, what, approx 2 years?!
Moreover, if they claim to have intimate knowledge of UNIX System V code, then
they must also have intimate knowledge of the version of the Linux kernel they
distribute since both are their products. It is unconceivable that they did not
recognize that the UNIX System V code were copied into Linux. Unless their
developers were falling asleep at the wheel while coding. Quan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
Fascinating:
From Yahoo SCOX forum, http://tinyurl.com/ko2b
Re: Is IBM holding back patents/by: StockSentinel
First of all, all they need is one widely violated patent to stick and they have
the wedge they need to split SCO case apart. Second it’s better to go with a few
slam-dunk patent violations then mix them up with ones that might be
questionable. Third, there is more to those patents IBM chose than people have
picked up here, look at IBM’s affirmative defenses. Then think about the 20 year
old patent that was tossed in there and how three of the IBM affirmative
defenses could come into play if SCO is clearly violating it, and they have no
other defense and can’t invalidate the patent. If you figure it out it is
hilarious as hell.
I suppose he means the ones about laches, delay, waiver, unclean hands, etc? bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 05:34 PM EDT |
bob: I havn't looked up the patents IBM are using against SCO but can they be 20
years old ?
Doesnt patents expire in 15 years ?
I believe the difference between patents and copyrigts are that copyrights give
no, or very little, protection
to the ideas but last for very long. Patents are wider in scope and protects not
only the expression, actual code, but alse methods and priciples, thus stopping
reimplementations, but they are limited in time to 15 years. Magnus Lundin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
IANAL but I believe laches get interesting when applied to patents, as even when
the defense is successfully applied, it only lets the infringer off past damages
(prior to the suit being filed) and doesn't allow the infringement to continue.
So, I think, SCO could apply the defense, get off some damages from IBM, and
still have their products all killed.
http://www.converium.com/web/converium/converium.nsf
/0/5731FF9F4372B6ED85256B43006EA07D?OpenDocument
Personally, I think SCO is not reading between the lines of IBM's responses, and
I think there is a message there that Darl has missed entirely. Also I think it
was a big mistake of Darl and Sontag to publicly mock/disparage IBM's filings,
as it is goading them not to settle, but get more aggressive.
The hidden message, I think, true to many stories (possibly apocryphal) about
IBM's history, is I think: "Do you really want us to search our humongous
database of patents for possible infringements by SCOX/Canopy?" quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 05:39 PM EDT |
The sooner SCO announces which Linux customer it plans to sue the sooner I can
write a check for a hundered or two dollars for this Linux customer's legal
defense fund. It be a great show of unity if tens of thousands of others did the
same. The sooner the pariah SCO sues someone the sooner it can be dispatched. PhilTR[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 05:39 PM EDT |
SCO: zero for two
http:
//www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=550527955&fp=16&fpid=0 quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 05:44 PM EDT |
I think the Linux "customer" will be IBM or an IBM subsiduary
Don't you remember after suing IBM, that SCO made a big huff and puff about how
they were going to sue another hardware manufacturer. Is it SGI? Is it Sun? Is
it HP? Went the chorus
Then they didn't sue anybody else, just revised their claim against IBM to
include Sequent subsiduary.
I just don't think SCO wants to fight 3 major legal battles at once (and that
sssumes that nobody else is going to sue them - which I think might be assuming
too much). Or maybe I'm underestimating their levels of loopiness. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 05:45 PM EDT |
Magnus,
The oldest is 4,814,746, dated March 21, 1989 and Filed August 11, 1986. So the
poster wasn't being precise, just saying that they were really old as patents
go. bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
Soory, just a little. According to http://www.law.cornell.edu/
topics/patent.html
"Prior to a recent amendment prompted by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) accompanying the Uruguay Round GATT, patents
were normally issued for a non-renewable period of seventeen years, measured
from the date of issuance. See § 154 of Title 35. Under the amended
provision (which took effect June 8, 1995) the term will be twenty years
measured from the date of application."
So if I understand this patents issued before 95 are for 17 years. Magnus
Lundin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 06:11 PM EDT |
Perens mentions the algorithm in Donald E. Knuth's The Art Of Computer
Programming.
TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1, Sec. 102.
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend
to any idea, procedure,
process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery,
regardless of the form in which
it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
Ullman claimed that the "First Fit" algorithm can differ from an optimal packing
by as much at 70%.
M. Garey, R. Graham, J. Ullman, "Worst-case analysis of memory allocation
algorithms, " Proc. 4th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1972.
Those who are interested can see if Donald Knuth even felt that "common sense"
or heuristic algorithms
should be allowed to be patented.
heuristic rule Definition: [n] a commonsense rule (or set of rules) intended
to increase the probability of solving some problem.
Remember that a maitre d' might use a seating chart and a "first fit" algorithm
to find a table for a party
of six.
What's so different about malloc.c?
http://www.pluto.linux.it/meeting/meeting1999/atti/no-pa
tents/brevetti/docs/knuth_letter_en.html Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 08:07 PM EDT |
Some comic relief from ecommerce times:
http://www
.ecommercetimes.com/images/story-sco-undercuts-1.jpg D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 08:13 PM EDT |
"Under SCO's theory, if any code created by a Unix licensee ever touches Unix,
SCO owns that code from then on, and can deny its creator the right to make use
of it for any other purpose."
That was part of the comments on slide 6 of SCO's presentation. If I read that
correctly, SCO thinks it owns more than just Linux. What's to keep them from
claiming ownership of things like Quake from id? id developed a Solaris version
on Solaris machines. I would assume they had a proper license for their Solaris
boxes. So by SCO's interpretation, they now own the Quake franchise. I'm sure id
will happily turn over all their profits from the game market. Even worse for
id, they release their code after a time as open source. How dare they give away
SCO's IP! J.F.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 08:51 PM EDT |
You gotta love CNET's shoddy reporting in this story:
http://news.com.com/210
0-1016-5066410.html?tag=nl
They quote everything SCO says as matter-of-fact; however, practically
everything Perens said is paraphrased and weakened - not giving any strength to
Parens arguments.
I thought they were being relatively unbiased till I read that garbage. MajorLeePissed[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:37 PM EDT |
After going through the MozillaQuest interview with Bill Claybrook, its pretty
obvious to me that the code leaked from SCOForum 2003 and the set he viewed are
one and the same. Judging from his comments regarding, and I paraphrase as its
not in front of me, "the timeframe of these alleged violations".
Well, the time frame I'm getting from the data gathered is the same one that
Project Monterey takes place in and I believe that it is there that SCO believes
it has an as-yet-unrevealed smoking gun (or at least a well-hidden dagger laced
with poison).
As I recall Sequent, IBM and SCO were partners in this project and it eventually
went down the drain, the biggest outcome being that IBM bought up Sequent and
SCO sat around twiddling its thumbs.
The timeframe I recall seeing makes this appear to be a revenge scheme to get
back at IBM for poking a hole in the Monterey Project. Or rather to use some
loose threads in that deal to tap IBM for a few hundred million dollars in a
settlement.
Seeing as these partners, and yes SCO and IBM were technology partners at one
time lest we forget, it is within reason to believe they would have worked
together on the same codebase for Monterey and its possible that code between
the three companies were shared since they were merging technologies to create a
64-bit SuperLinux of sorts.
This does not, however, explain to me why SCO would believe that NUMA (as in
NUMA-Q or Sequent NUMA), Read-Copy-Update, XFS, JFS etc. would belong to
them.
I think the answers lie with Project Monterey and the terms of partnership in
that deal. I'm almost certain that Project Monterey is the source of SCO's
confidence/arrogance and that it has yet to reveal its final hand.
I hope the community investigates this particular area as I think it will reveal
a great deal about what SCO intends to deal in court should that day ever
come.
Just my 2 cents. Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:42 PM EDT |
Flashback:
http://www.silicon.com/
news/500008/1/1005787.html Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:44 PM EDT |
"Under SCO's theory, if any code created by a Unix licensee ever touches Unix,
SCO owns that code from then on, and can deny its creator the right to make use
of it for any other purpose."
J.F.,
You got it in one.
This has been their argument, starting around Sept. 2002.
They have grandiose fantasies. D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:47 PM EDT |
Correction: I meant to say SuperUnix, not SuperLinux. DoH! Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:59 PM EDT |
Hi, just thought I'd let you know that Greg has posted a comment at the top of
his page at http://www.lemis.com/g
rog/SCO/code-comparison.html to this effect:
"STOP PRESS.
I wrote this yesterday after careful examination of the evidence. I then
continued my examinations and discovered that I was wrong.
I am now convinced that the code in question was, indeed, derived from UNIX
System V.4, and not an earlier version of UNIX, as some other people have
claimed. This does not mean that it was stolen. I'll update this page when I
have time, hopefully in the next 12 to 18 hours, with detailed reasoning of my
conclusions."
Y. yo_linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:38 PM EDT |
Have any of the BSD or unix people commented on the Sco slides?
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">monkymind[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 21 2003 @ 03:21 AM EDT |
http://www.lemis.com/g
rog/SCO/code-comparison.html
Greg Lehey's page is updated.
Some of his conclusions:
"My analysis differs from that of Bruce Perens and Co. They don't compare the
exact code, so they don't notice that the exact version imported clearly came
from System V.4, and not from older, freely available versions.
"How important is this code? 17 years ago, BSD had something better. SCO can
hardly claim that a couple of error checks and mutual exclusion, both
traditional techniques described in many books, are intellectual property worthy
of legal protection.
"How can SCO claim to have state-of-the-art SMP technology when they're still
using core kernel code dating from the infancy of UNIX?
"There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that it came from System V.4. Whether it
was legal or not is not something that I can assess; given the status of the
code, it's very likely that it has been published elsewhere, and that SGI had a
right to use it. It's surprising, though, that there's no AT&T copyright notice
in there.
"On the other hand, it's difficult to see malice in the incorporated code. Linux
already has a malloc() function. Why did it need another one?
"This code was used only in the ia64 port, which was experimental.
"The code was removed from Linux on 4 July 2003, as shown by the commit log. As
a result, SCO's claims that this code is in Linux are factually incorrect.
"Even if SCO could prove that this code justified charging license fees, they
could only do it from Intel ia64 users, a vanishingly small number of
people."
If Greg is right, Marcelo W. Tosatti and SGI may be able to give more details as
to the origins and legitimacy of the code. r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 21 2003 @ 04:29 AM EDT |
IANAL but this is sound legal advice from the same principles as our dearly
beloved SCO - stock up on Monopoly money. When the inevitable SCOundrel comes
calling for his pound of flesh, give it to him. Don't worry - be happy - SCO
has so little of the grey matter as to be able to recognise fools' gold as gold,
and monopoly money as legal tender.
nexex - about DiDio - I saw that photo - the jaws that bite, the claws that
catch - and I shuddered, remembering the jub-jub bird and the frumious
bandersnatch, which had lain quiet in my mind up till that point in time.
Grabbing my bandana and my harpoon I snuck out of the Baton Rouge flat and crept
out - with Bobby McGee of course, my trustworthy companion - to the side of the
road and thumbed down a diesel.
No Jub-Jub Bird was going to catch me and mine! I would run as long as I could,
and fight, even if the Jub-Jub Bird brought the Frumious Bandersnatch into the
hunt ...
At that point in time Hobbes attacked me without provocation and I lost my train
of thought, into a deep deep ravine, wherein lurked a Snark of the Boojum
variety, which I could escape if I .... ;) Wesley Parish[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 21 2003 @ 08:13 AM EDT |
DiDio appears to have written about Windows 2000, and the picture is related to
that:
1. Windows Advantage - - Windows 2000 riches await smart migrators
Abstract: Windows 2000 riches await smart migrators By Laura DiDio. It" is
almost here.. The "It" is Microsoft's Windows 2000, arguably one of the most
anticipated productions since David O. Selznick brought "Gone with the Wind" to
the big screen.More than six years in the making, Windows 2000 consists of
Windows 2000 Pr
http://windowsad
vantage.com/trenches/11-15-99_riches.asp
size 10934 bytes - 11/2/2001 11:09:34 PM GMT
2. Windows Advantage - - Users express cautious optimism about Windows 2000
deployments
Abstract: Users express cautious optimism about Windows 2000 deployments By
Laura DiDio. All talk of Windows 2000 migration boils down to a single question:
"When?. That the question is "when" and not "if" is a testament to Microsoft's
continuing clout, marketing muscle and its determination to forge ahead despite
http://window
sadvantage.com/tech_edge/01-17-00_optimism.asp
size 10592 bytes - 11/2/2001 11:08:40 PM GMT
http://windowsadvantage.co
m/search/default.asp pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 21 2003 @ 10:29 PM EDT |
Dr. Tony and Jonathan:
I asked a kernel coder your question and a CEO of a Linux company, and here's
what they both told me, and this isn't legal advice, because they aren't
lawyers. It's a tech perspective. Most companies never use any of the high end
stuff at issue here. If you don't install it on your computer, you can't
infringe even in SCO's wildest dreams. The 2.2 kernel is more than adequate for
most business office functions. If you check, you may find that is what you
have running anyway. If so, you have nothing to worry about. Even SCO said it
is a solution. Alternatively, you could compile your own kernel, avoiding the
famed four, but just running the 2.2 is certainly a lot easier. This is in
addition to all the other things you can do, like ask your lawyer. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|