|
|
| SCO Says SGI Isn't Doing Enough, but What Would Be? --And Details on SGI's Code Comparison |
 |
|
Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 08:24 PM EDT
|
It appears nothing SGI has done is enough to satisfy SCO, and in fact Darl McBride's statements make one wonder if anything short of removing XFS would be enough, and because that isn't going to happen, it looks like the two sides are going to legally rumble: The SCO Group has insisted that changes made by Silicon Graphics (SGI) to some of its Unix code will not be enough to prevent termination of SGI's Unix licence.
SCO plans to revoke SGI's Unix licence even though the latter claims to have removed all potentially offending code from its XFS journalling file system, now in Linux. But this does not go far enough, SCO has told vnunet.com . The licence is due to be terminated on 14 October, two months after a warning letter was sent to SGI complaining that it had allowed code to be transferred from SCO's Unix System V into Linux. The letter, dated 13 August, claimed that SGI subjected SCO's source code to "unrestricted disclosure, unauthorised transfer and disposition, and unauthorised use and copying". . .
"We don't believe that SGI has taken all of the steps necessary to cure all of the breaches, and in fact in our letter to them, we state 'SGI's breaches of these agreements cannot be cured'."
Laura DiDio has said publicly on October 2, 2003, that SCO has been aware of "blatant SGI violations" for a year. That raises a number of issues. First, if they knew about the "violations" since October of 2002, why didn't they do anything about it until now? And, more, since SCO claims that they set up their stock plan in advance of any knowledge of legal action, that would appear now not to be the case, if what DiDidio says it true. As Groklaw noted back in August, second story down on the page:
Bloomberg News has an article, appearing in The Salt Lake Tribune, reporting that Darl McBride says that SCO's CFO submitted a sales plan in January "months before legal action was contemplated", presumably as proof that there is no connection between the stock sales and the lawsuit:Chief Financial Officer Robert Bench began the selling by SCO insiders, four days after SCO filed the suit against IBM. Bench is selling to help pay a $150,000 tax bill, McBride said. Under the Sarbanes-Oxley law, companies are no longer able to loan executives money to pay taxes or other expenses.
Bench submitted a sale plan in January, months before any legal action against IBM was contemplated, McBride said. His agreement called for the sales to begin on March 8. He planned to sell 5,000 shares a month for the next 12 months, according to the plan." [emphasis added]But if they knew about the "violations" back in October of 2002, and hired Boies in January, it does raise some questions in my mind about the January plan and just how preset it actually was. I hope the SEC reads Groklaw, because they are in a better position than I am to know what this all adds up to and can do something about it, if it feels it would be appropriate. Another thing: Was SGI's contribution of XFS to Linux a secret they only now just discovered? Hardly. Aside from Linux code being publicly viewable at all times by SCO, and the fact that they have distributed their own distribution of Linux themselves -- with XFS, by the way, which means they made money from it and knew it was there, as you can see for yourself in this SCO product brochure which mentions XFS by name, as well as NUMA and JFS -- consistently throughout the time period in question, SGI first announced they would be donating XFS to Linux back in May of 1999: InfoWorld: SGI extends an OS crown jewel to Linux effort
May 21, 1999, 12 :03 UTC
SGI on Thursday here at Linux Expo announced it will make the heart of its Irix operating system -- its 64-bit journaled XFS file system -- available to the open-source community. "XFS will help Linux get past some of the limitations it has today, like scaling and the 2GB file limit. Our goal is to make Linux as capable as [SGI's] Irix in terms of scaling and number of processors it can handle," said Harris Shiffman, strategic technologist for SGI in Mountain View, Calif.
"XFS will enable Linux to scale high enough to handle file systems as large as 18 million terabytes of data and files up to 9 million terabytes, SGI officials said." It wasn't until about a year later that SGI legal authorized its release, so it wasn't the case that no one knew what was happening and someone was sneaking code into Linux. It was cleared by SGI legal only after an extensive in-house "encumbrance review and cleanup" process, and if that isn't enough, folks, to clear Linus and open source of any problems with code contributions, exactly what is enough?: Re: Source code for Linux XFS now available!
To : "David S. Miller"
Subject : Re: Source code for Linux XFS now available!
From : Russell Cattelan
Date : Thu, 30 Mar 2000 22:19:58 -0600
Cc :linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Organization : Moo Solutions
References :
Sender :owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Dan.Koren@sgi.com wrote:
> "David S. Miller" wrote:
> >
> > One would think that with a year or so of internal work this sort of
> > stuff would have been cleaned up already. If you guys had released
> > this a year ago things would be much further along than it is right
> > now, I think that keeping it internal for so long was the biggest
> > mistake SGI made about XFS on Linux. Even if it didn't build nor
> > work, releasing 'a source tree' a year ago would have had the whole
> > world contributing to fix it all up and we'd have a working and clean
> > XFS in the tree already.
> >
> > But that's SGI politics for you.
> >
>
> No, it isn't.
> In fairness to all of us, inside and outside SGI, one must come to
> terms with the fact that we could not publish XFS code before the
> encumbrance review and cleanup were complete. All of us on the XFS
> team at SGI would have liked nothing better than to publish XFS as
> soon as we made the announcement last year.
>
> thx,
>
The green light from legal literally wasn't given till late Tuesday.
I was up till 3 am finalizing the cvs transfer procedure.
The source code release was something we all wanted.
Have to start bracing for all the patches. :-)
>
> dk
>
> ---------
> Dan Koren
Dan.Koren@sgi.com If you follow this thread, by the way, you'll see the open source process at work. Here's the press release SGI put out at the time: SGI Empowers Linux With the Availability of XFS 1.0 and Linux Failsafe Plug-Ins SGI Empowers Linux With the Availability of XFS 1.0 and Linux Failsafe Plug-Ins
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., May 1 /PRNewswire/ -- SGI (NYSE: SGI -news ) today announced the production release of XFS(TM) 1.0 for Linux®, the high-end SGI journaled filesystem software, and code availability of Linux FailSafe(TM) clustering plug-ins. As a leading supporter of Linux and the Open Source community, SGI is once again providing business-critical infrastructure for Linux by porting scalable and robust technology such as XFS 1.0 and Linux FailSafe.
XFS 1.0 for Linux, a journaled filesystem that improves performance and speeds recovery in the event of a system failure, and the code for Linux FailSafe, a commonly used clustering tool to run critical applications, is now available for download on SGI's open source Web site at http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/ and http://oss.sgi.com/projects/failsafe/ . There is no cost for either item.
Linux FailSafe
Linux FailSafe is a high-availability clustering tool that helps companies maintain system uptime and ensure continual access to software and services, while eliminating the risk of system failures on critical applications. Linux FailSafe is architected to scale up to 16 nodes in a cluster with the cluster members sharing storage, allowing multiple servers to assume control of data in the event of a failure. Now with SGI's open sourced Linux FailSafe plug-ins, NFS(TM), Samba(TM) and Apache(TM) applications will be able to failover on system failure and users will still have access to their data.
XFS Journaled Filesystem
XFS, the widely recognized and industry-leading high-performance filesystem, provides reliability and rapid crash recovery without hampering performance. Existing filesystems entail significant limitations in scalability and stability, whereas SGI XFS is the first journaled filesystem that has over a six-year solid track record in production environments. Its mature technology has been proven on thousands of IRIX® OS-based systems as the default filesystem for all SGI customers.
XFS 1.0 for Linux works with the Linux 2.4 kernel and offers unique advantages that other filesystems do not, including:
-- Crash recovery -- fast recovery, regardless of the number of files
being managed
-- Scalability -- meets the most demanding storage capacity and I/O
storage needs
-- Space allocation -- enables systems to efficiently scale to support
large numbers of files and directories
-- Complete tool set to support filesystem features
-- Excellent integration with other Linux subsystems License and Availability
Both XFS 1.0 and Linux FailSafe are licenses under GPL and are currently available at no cost.
About SGI
SGI provides a broad range of high-performance computing and advanced graphics solutions that enable customers to understand and conquer their toughest computing problems. A strong advocate for open technology, SGI is committed to contributing technology from its core competencies in visualization and high-performance computing to the Open Source community to help solve complex data problems. Headquartered in Mountain View, Calif., with offices worldwide, company information is located on the Web at www.sgi.com . The date on this press release, which isn't on Yahoo! any more but is still on Wayback, is May of 2001, as you can also see from this posting: SGI's xfs
To : debian
Subject : SGI's xfs
From : Matthias Berse
Date : Wed, 2 May 2001 11:10:22 +0200. . .
Hi,
Are there any plans in supporting the usage of SGI's xfs filesystem in
debian? Are there kernel patches available and/or userspace tools
being packaged?
Since yesterday xfs 1.0 for linux is out and under gpl
see http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010501/sftu043.html
"Thanks,
Matthias
+-------------created at Wed May 2 11:06:17 CEST 2001-----------------+ So removing code snippets isn't enough, as Blake Stowell says: In response, SCO's director of public relations, Blake Stowell, told vnunet.com: "Making minor amendments to its XFS file system doesn't cure the breach. SGI must do more as outlined [in the August letter] to cure all of their breaches." SGI Developer Central Open Source/Linux XFS is here, if you want to do your own research. SGI press releases for 2000 onward are here. And
here is a Google SGI XFS search results page. So, all in all, it certainly appears that SGI has the opportunity to bring its own declaratory judgment action, if it so chooses, thanks to the incredible public statements of McBride and his Merry Men. They keep bringing in new lawyers, but the essential legal problem they have is not, apparently, curable, which is that they talk too much and do too little. They are now faced with explaining to the judge(s) why they never bothered to do anything about XFS since 1999, why removing any conceivably related code snippets that are apparently in the public domain anyway isn't enough, why they distributed Linux with XFS, and exactly why they shouldn't be the defendant in a declaratory judgment action, now that they have made clear that there is an actual controversy, at least from all I see and can understand from the public record. I hope SGI makes the letter public and the contract. Also, I hope SGI brings a declaratory judgment action, and I hope this material is useful to them. The big news is that SGI has looked at and compared System V code and Linux, and they say they have only found trivial snips that could arguably overlap and even Gartner says this news is not helpful to SCO: SGI declined to reveal any details on the additional code segments it found, but the fact that its analysis appears to reveal no extensive overlap between the code in Linux and System V is good news for Linux users, according to Gartner analyst George Weiss. They checked it twice, first with Eric Raymond's Comparator and some of their own tools, and then they checked again more thoroughly later in September: SGI's code comparison was done during September using the Comparator software created by open source advocate Eric Raymond, as well as some other internally developed tools, according to SGI. It compared source code from the Unix System V release 4.1 software that SGI has licensed from SCO with a version of the Linux kernel released this June, SGI said.
"Our review was focused on the code we contributed to Linux; however, we did run the Comparator code on the Linux 2.4.21 kernel. The process involves using subjective judgment to review similarities identified by the tool," said Greg Estes, SGI's vice president of corporate marketing, in an e-mail response to questions. . . .
Then in September SGI carried out its more comprehensive comparison. . . .
This comparison revealed a few examples of line-by-line copying, but did not determine whether the code was owned by SCO or in the public domain, according to the letter. "SGI has discovered a few additional code segments ... that may arguably be related to the Unix code," Altmaier wrote. He added that these segments were "trivial in amount." Looks like SCO's copyright claims just kind of went poof. Now if every other UNIX vendor that has made contributions to Linux does the same thing SGI has done -- and I do include HP in this, if they want to help out -- then that should be that. If anyone thinks IBM hasn't done it already, I'd say they don't know IBM very well. This leaves only SCO's very unusual derivative code theories and perhaps some "obfuscated" code claims, which will likely end up on the cutting room floor too, just like the SCOForum slide show code and now the copyright claims appear to have done. Although there is this very funny quotation in the Vnunet article by SCO's Blake Stowell, in the I'll-huff-and-I'll-puff department: The fact that SGI has replaced the three code fragments in question does not satisfy SCO, according to Blake Stowell, a SCO spokesman. "These releases have already taken place in Linux," he said. "You still have all these machines out there that haven't applied patches that are still benefitting from this Unix System V code." Well. Priceless, isn't it? Thank you very much, SGI. Thank you, Eric Raymond. And to SCO: shame on you. Shame. And may all your public statements come back to haunt you now. Now, about those invoices for copyright infringement you've been threatening us with... _______________________________________ UPDATE: Groklaw readers have responded with some more evidence and here it is: http://uk.sco.com/events/Partner_Briefings/March_2003/sco_os_update.ppt
http://caldera.com/developers/training/unitedlinux/Developer_web_2B-3.ppt
http://www.caldera.com/support/docs/scolinux/ipf/relnotes-ipf.html -- Note point 12
http://docsrv.caldera.com:8457/en/index.html
More links that may indicate SCOG had knowledge of the origins of XFS and JFS and yet released them themselves:
http://www.caldera.com/images/pdf/scooffice/SettingUpSCOofficeMailServeronSCOLinux.pdf
http://www.caldera.com/images/pdf/salestoolkit/olswstechnical.pdf
http://www.caldera.com/images/pdf/scolinux/UnitedLinux_whitepaper.pdf
http://www.sco.de/newsletter/0103.pdf
http://www.caldera.de/newsletter/0103.pdf
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/mail_archive/200003/msg00039.html
"This is terrific news and we're happy to have SGI as part of the open source family," said Ransom Love, president and CEO of Caldera Systems, Inc. "There's a great need in Linux for business to have that enterprise-class file technology and storage capability. Daily, we have enterprise customers asking for these solutions - particularly where graphics are concerned. With SGI's contribution and expertise in journaling, throughput and data integrity, we can meet the file sharing/storage needs of those customers with the best technology available. That SGI would make this contribution to the open source community says a lot about their vision and business acumen." - Ransom Love, CEO Caldera
You can read the full release here (dated May 20, 1999).
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 09:55 PM EDT |
Of course, since the problem is SCO itself, there is never anything anyone else
could ever do that would satisfy them.
Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile and everyone else is wrong and
ganging up on them. Waaaaah!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 10:03 PM EDT |
P.J., I keep reading things like this and keep coming back to the concept of
mitigation of damages. Obviously with regard to the claim of infringing code in
Linux, SCO has been grossly derelict in mitigating any damages they claim to
exist, since they flatly and steadfastly refuse to specify the exact nature of
the infringement. Now the SGI timetable you've described just adds fuel to that
fire.
I've looked around, but have found nothing on the Web concerning how timely
such a mitigation effort must be. Can a case be made (or has one ever been made)
that damages would not be awarded due to the plaintiff's failure to mitigate?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: WhiteFang on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 10:13 PM EDT |
I don't know if you've seen this link yet. Just in case I'll post it here.
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/1003sgicompa.html
From the article:
Then in September SGI carried out its more comprehensive comparison. "SGI
continued our investigation to determine whether any other code in the Linux
kernel was even conceivably implicated," Altmaier states in the letter.
This comparison revealed a few examples of line-by-line copying, but did not
determine whether the code was owned by SCO or in the public domain, according
to the letter. "SGI has discovered a few additional code segments ... that
may arguably be related to the Unix code," Altmaier wrote. He added that
these segments were "trivial in amount." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 10:26 PM EDT |
I'd be surprised if SGI has the money to sue SCO, but here's a comment from a
(somewhat untrustworthy) Yahoo! message board poster.
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&a
mp;tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=49320
"BTW and FWIW somewhere I've read that SGI would file suit against TSG
tomorrow Monday"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 10:47 PM EDT |
1. Re: Copyright
XFS is inspired by the design on EFS. EFS is based on Berkeley FFS!
See http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/papers/xfs_usenix/
Berkeley FFS = BSD!!!
2. Re: Trade Secrets
File system design techniques are very widely documented.
See for example:
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/courses/dd/summaries.html
or
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/context/117961/0
or
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/context/82174/396774
3. Re: 64 bit file systems
XFS undoubtedly has some valuable features. However, there is no unique value in
XFS, just because it handles 64 bit.
http://www.netbsd.org/Misc/features.html
"NetBSD has shipped with 64-bit filesystems since the 1.0 release in
October 1994." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 12:25 AM EDT |
You said that poorly written article was offensive. (Couple of stories back). I
actually thought it was just bad journalism.
On the other hand
http://www.techcentralstation.com/100603C.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- So ignorant it is hard to read - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 01:05 AM EDT
- SCO Says SGI Isn't Doing Enough, but What Would Be? --And Details on SGI's Code Comparison - Authored by: Graham on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 01:31 AM EDT
- The major factual errors - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 02:11 AM EDT
- Stowellism - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 02:14 AM EDT
- SCO Says SGI Isn't Doing Enough, but What Would Be? --And Details on SGI's Code Comparison - Authored by: PJ on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 02:11 AM EDT
- SCO Says SGI Isn't Doing Enough, but What Would Be? --And Details on SGI's Code Comparison - Authored by: J.F. on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 03:25 AM EDT
- Positives in the article - Authored by: wpsmoke on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 05:04 AM EDT
- Words, words, and more words.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:28 AM EDT
- SCO Says SGI Isn't Doing Enough, but What Would Be? --And Details on SGI's Code Comparison - Authored by: Slay on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:38 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: raindog on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 01:00 AM EDT |
While DiDio may yet be demonstrated to have acted as a paid SCO mouthpiece over
the last half year, it's important to note that none of the SCO guys themselves
are rushing to admit they had plans regarding XFS anf SGI a year ago. I don't
know whether DiDio saying they told her that would work as well on the stand as
Stowell or McBride admitting the same (or proving they did without their help,
using their tendency early on to say helpfully contradictory things to the
press.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: minkwe on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 03:25 AM EDT |
SCO knowingly benefited from the presence of XFS in Linux as this SCO
OpenLinux product brochure from 2002 clearly shows on page 2. This Document
also has implications for the IBM and RedHat suits as well as for any claim that
SCO may bring against the GPL, NUMA, JFS, XFS, etc.
FEATURES
FOR BUSINESS
The features for SCO Linux 4 were drawn from two sources.
First,
the latest and best technology available from the open
source community was
chosen to be included in the product.
Then the UnitedLinux Open Source engineers
added features to
create a business ready core technology. The result is the
most
technologically advanced Linux product on the market.
Features of SCO
Linux 4 include:
Linux 2.4.19 Kernel The core of SCO Linux Server 4.0 is
the
2.4.19 Linux kernel. New features include broadened USB
support, Logical
Volume Manager, improved journaling file
system support, POSIX-ACLS, new
O(1) scheduler (improves
SMP support) , Asynchronous I/O, Enterprise
Volume
Management System (EVMS), PCI Hot Plug Support on
supported
hardware, NUMA support, and many other
performance enhancing
capabilities.
Journaling File System Journaling file systems add a higher
level
of reliability and faster recovery time. JFS, ReiserFS, XFS
and
Ext3 journaling file systems are included with SCO Linux
Server. Each of
these file systems has been tested and optimized
for the best performance and
stability.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 08:21 AM EDT |
http://www.infoconomy.com/pages/news-and-gossip/group85875.adp
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ZeusLegion on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 08:48 AM EDT |
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1306814,00.asp
I found this to be
the most interesting piece:
"In fact, Sun is actively working against
Linux. Sun signed a deal with SCO in February that, in theory, gave Sun more
rights to the Unix source code (specifically, some SVR4 driver code). In
practice, it gave SCO the money it needed to launch its suit against IBM on
March 6. According to SCO's Sept. 15 10-Q filing, Sun has paid at least
$2.5 million to SCO so far this year, and it will pay SCO another
two-and-a-half million bucks come November. Also in February, Sun picked up the
option of buying as many as 210,000 shares of SCO stock at $1.83 per share.
That works out to about a 1.5 percent stake in SCO."
What more
evidence does anyone need here to see that SUN is dirty? A photo of McNealy
personally handing a suitcase full of money to McBride while holding a giant
cardboard sign that says "HELLO DARL C. MCBRIDE. HERE'S THE BRIBE FOR THE
ILLEGAL LINUX/IBM/SGI FUD CAMPAIGN. -SCOTT MCNEALY"?
---
Z [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SUN's Dirty Deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 09:14 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: ZeusLegion on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 09:14 AM EDT |
Anyone already notice they changed the name of the Linux Kernel Personality to
<b>OpenServer Kernel Personality</b> on their website?
http://www.sco.com/products/okp/
Probably a precautionary measure but maybe Linus' attorney wrote them a nice
C&D letter. One can only hope.
---
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 10:32 AM EDT |
hi PJ and all GROKLAW readers
Please never stop these priceless investigations. When I read
"normal" newspapers or newssites, I always think not to know the
truth. But when I read GROKLAW I just know more and I'm able to understand
what's going on (links are very important).
I would like to thank you PJ and all kind guys who write constructional comments
:).
keanu,
keanu_at_hispeed.ch[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: keanu on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:07 AM EDT |
just found on linuxtoday.com
http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/2003100600826NWBZLL
"Only 16% of 50 large-company tech managers recently surveyed by Forrester
Research said that the legal challenges from tech firm SCO will deter them from
buying Linux. SCO says it owns part of the computer code used to create the
operating system, and wants all users to pay royalties or possibly face legal
action. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:11 AM EDT |
I'm posting this way-OT item here because:
1) it's not important enough to 'scoop' it to PJ, and besides she's way too
busy anyhoo.
2) <rant> Groklaw shoulda gone with PHPBB or Invision Powerboard cos a)
it's more freeform, and b) PJ coulda had an army moderators watching the
content. </rant>
3) There is no spoon.
-----
SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux at
http://www.sco.com/scosource/description.html says that...
"Licenses must be registered at www.sco.com/support/registration/ in order
to be activated"
Hmm, okay, so lets head over there...
fill in a bit of registration info, yadda yadda yadda...
and we get through to the product registration page...
next, select the "SCO IP Compliance License" and grab your choice of
server, CPU, or desktop license...
okay, so here we are at the actual SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux
registration page (imagine some pretty colours and fonts to go with this plain
text version)...
Product Registration
For Mr. Spanker Spanky of Spankyworks
Registration Form - SCO IP Compliance License
Please enter the license information requested below, which you will find on the
Certificate of License and Authenticity which accompanies your SCO product.
SCO License Number [ ]
The SCO License Number is case sensitive. Please enter exactly as it appears
SCO License Code [ ]
The SCO License Code is case sensitive. Please enter exactly as it appears
SCO License Data [ ]
The SCO License Data is case sensitive. Please enter exactly as it appears
Ahhh, hmmm... what? Three sets of codes? I presume these are supplied to me
when I ring them up to order my license??? Man, talk about jumping through
hoops.
Anyone who wants to check this out for themselves, just head over to the
www.sco.com/support/registration/ page and plug in my test account details of
user: mrspanky, password: spanky
Scofuddle, Scofuddled, Scofuddlement: the state of mental confusion resulting
from everything SCO touches.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lightsail on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
Separate Rhetoric and lawsuit
When reviewing the SCO vs. Open Source situation, several elements need to be
kept clear. Here are some simple rules:
1. Classify SCO news as rhetoric or legal. Most press is rhetoric only, very
little actual changes to legal situation.
a. If rhetoric, compare against previous statements to see if new claim or
re-hash / forking of previous rhetoric.
b. If re-hash / forking, compare if clarifies previous rhetoric or
obfuscates rhetoric on a subject.
2. If legal, ask if purpose is to resolve dispute or lengthen proceedings.
a. If lengthens proceedings, determine if validity vs. delay factor.
SCO had only nebulous contract claims to derivative works on the thinnest of
definitions in its lawsuit. SCO repeatedly blathers on and on over other issues
that it has not yet added to the litigation. IBM raised the level of litigation
with copyright and patent issues. IBM also raised the General Public License
issue.
SCO has a long history of contentious statements about the GPL while continuing
to use it to this very day. SCO showed a detailed knowledge of the GPL. SCO
based their IPO on the GPL. SCO released several of their applications under the
GPL. SCO still ships a large amount of GPL applications to improve the usability
of their UNIX product. SCO cannot separate the validity of the GPL when legally
disputing Linux and releasing Samba or any of several GNU applications. SCO
cannot re-write their history before a court. Their SEC filings are public
record, with the GPL included. It seems impossible for SCO to repudiate the GPL
given they still have it as a core part of their business strategy. The actual
filing of any attempt to invalidate the GPL would place SCO in direct conflict
with all the filings that they made to the SEC. Even a win on a contractual
basis would not invalidate the GPL, and SCO cannot hope to mount an effective
legal challenge against the GPL.
SCO will attempt to stay in a high public profile and convert that into stock
value for as long as they can. Possibly a buyout offer will come in to end the
charade.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 12:10 PM EDT |
| From this
Power Point presentation it looks like SCOG was bragging that SCO Linux uses
XFS back in March of this year. They knew it was there, they released it
themselves under GPL. How's that for mitigating damages?
---
The Wright
brothers were not the first to fly...they were the first to LAND. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hawken on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 12:35 PM EDT |
I don't know if this has been posted here before.
HP offers Sun
customers $25K Linux incentive
Hewlett-Packard on Friday announced
a new program aimed at luring users of Sun Microsystem Inc.'s Solaris operating
system over to Hewlett-Packard machines running Linux. The bait? US$25,000
in porting and migration services.
More in:
http://www.tecchannel.com/news/491/
Have a nice day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ra on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 12:56 PM EDT |
Everyone these are some of the questions I took from the other thread and very
lightly editted and a quick spell check was run. I moved some of my favorite
questions to the top.
I think some of these questions should not go into the final version. I am
interested in some suggestions as to a fair process for choosing which questions
to include.
It would also be good to divide the questions into categories. I would
appreciate suggestions as to what categories to include.
I tried not to include repeats but that means I may have left some questions
out. If a question was left it it was unintentional. Please point it out in
that case.
****
If SCO's copyrights to certain UNIX code are being infringed by portions of
Linux, why has SCO not taken the proper legal actions under USC-17, the US
federal copyright law, to defend their copyrighted material?
Would SCO clarify what rights for what products Microsoft and Sun purchased for
each monetary transaction? If Sun already held a full SYSV license which was
non-terminable what was Sun purchasing for millions of dollars?
Is Open Source really the problem here? If IBM, SGI and Sequent had given or
sold to code to another closed source operating system such as Windows or a
competing Unix variety, would SCO have the same issues, other than the obvious
fact that SCO likely would never have found out?
When SCO was ordered by a German court to either show evidence of infringement
in the Linux kernel or pay a fine, why did SCO decide to pay the fine? Wouldn't
showing some of the infringing code have bolstered your case, not to mention
saving your company over $10,000?
If SCO believes that user indemnification is important, why does it not offer
indemnifications to all of its customers?
When did SCO discover that JFS, XFS, RCU, SMP and NUMA were derivative works of
SCO copyrighted programs? Why did SCO cooperate with the distribution of these
works for so long if they infringed on SCO's copyrights?
Is your suit against IBM about trade secrets, copyright, breach of contract, or
some combination thereof? Why have your comments to the press not been
consistent in that regard?
If your complaint is with IBM, why did you send 1500 threatening letters to
large users of Linux, many of whom are not IBM customers?
If your complaint against IBM is about Linux, why are you threatening to revoke
their AIX license?
Why did you claim to hold all IP rights related to UNIX when Novell retains
ownership of the USL patents and the Open Group owns the UNIX trademark?
Do you dispute the history of UNIX has described in the OSI position paper, or
the history of the Trillian (Linux/ia64) project as described by a post to Linux
Weekly News? If so, what parts of these documents are in error?
If the law allows for damages to be awarded for copyright infringement even
after the infringement ends, why do you refuse to point out the allegedly copied
SCO UNIX code in Linux?
Why is your NDA to look at the allegedly copied SCO UNIX code in Linux so
restrictive?
Are you able to demonstrate using revision histories and/or source tree diffs
that the code in question originated in SCO UNIX and not in Linux? Just showing
that sections of code and comments are similar is not sufficient.
Are you able to demonstrate the code in question came from a developer at IBM
and not another company, possibly even SCO? Again, just showing that sections of
code and comments are similar is not sufficient.
Are you able to demonstrate that the code in question is not part of BSD 4.4lite
source, which based on the settlement of the UCB/USL lawsuit of the early '90s
is free of any AT&T-derived UNIX code?
Are you able to demonstrate that the code in question is has never been
described or published in a operating systems textbook, technical paper, or
specification (eg. POSIX, Single Unix Standard)?
One of the few pundits who's been willing to sign your NDA has reported that
some of the allegedly copied code deals with NUMA system support. I've had
difficulty finding any indication on your website which of your products support
such systems. Could you please indicate which of your products support NUMA
hardware?
Can you prove that your Linux Kernel Personality product, as well as any other
Linux compatibility software you produce (such as filesystem drivers), either
does not infringe upon Linux code or has source code available to customers as
required by the GPL?
Mr. McBride, SCO distributed the Linux kernel version 2.4.x with the GPL under
both the Caldera brand and the SCO name for 3 years, but didn't know there was
any of SCO's "intellectual property" in it. Are we to assume that
you're defense, then, is that it was ok to distribute the code as long as it
wasn't yours?
(1) Did SCO have a contract with IBM for the joint development work of Project
Monterey? (2) If you had a contract for Project Monterey, are you going to file
that contract as evidence in your suit against IBM?
What specific things does SCO do to ensure that all of its code doesn't
infringe on others rights that Linux developers do not do?
If the Linux community has agreed to remove any SCO intellectual property from
Linux, why hasn't SCO taken advantage of the opportunity by providing file
names and line numbers to the Linux development community?
Since all of the Linux source code is openly available for public viewing, why
is it necessary to require a Non-disclosure Agreement before identifying any
infringing code?
Can SCO survive as a viable company if a non-infringing version of the Linux
kernel were released -- a kernel that doesn't infringe on SCO's intellectual
property? Does SCO need Linux intellectual property revenues to continue doing
business?
In your open letter to the open source community you refer to the fact that
Linux is considered "free" software. Members of the open source
community use this term with regards to their rights to innovate and cooperate
on software projects. Is it inconceivable to you that quality, enterprise
software could be developed under those circumstances, especially when the
community is millions strong and has been working on Linux for over ten years?
Companies like IBM and HP are reporting that they have built a solid business
model around open source software. Why did Caldera (now SCO) fail to do the
same?
Considering the role Caldera (now SCO) played in Linux development between 1999
and 2002, is it possible that SCO has overlooked its own contributions to the
Linux kernel as it alleges infringement by others? Certainly there are plenty of
examples of former Caldera/SCO executives touting plans to merge UNIX into
Linux?
SCO has claimed ownership of intellectual property in the Linux kernel, but that
ownership has certainly been called into question by IBM, Novell, and members of
the open source community, among others. Based on your understanding of
"playing by the rules" of business, as you addressed in your open
letter, how is sending out invoices to companies and businesses who have not
bought anything from SCO "playing by the rules?"
You certainly don't have a policy of not commenting on pending litigation, so
what will SCO's response be to claims that SCO's products infringe on four of
IBM's patents? Will you be removing the offending code from your products or
are you considering honoring IBM's intellectual property?
If RedHat wins a declaratory judgment that its products do not infringe on
SCO's intellectual property, will you still continue to pursue licensing fees
from RedHat's customers? They're still using the Linux 2.4 kernel, right?
Are you aware of the court decisions that make damages hard to collect when the
copyright holder delays action? Have you considered that the delays might mean
the court declares that SCO's damages were not serious, even if you prevail?
Are you aware that USC-17 sets a 3-year time limit on actions for infringement,
beginning on the date the copyright holder discovers the infringement, or could
reasonably have been expected to become aware of the infringement? Can we expect
to see any action during the 2 years you have remaining?
What law or laws does SCO rely on when it claims that it needs to be compensated
for use, as opposed to copying, of its code, if any is found in Linux?
Why does SCO continue to distribute software under the GPL if it believes it is
not a legally valid license?
Will the SCO Linux-use license include indemnification?
Does SCO have a process for preventing BSD, Linux, and Unix-licensee code from
being incorporated into the SCO Unix sources? What is that process?
Did SCO (formerly Caldera) verify that all Linux kernel contributions were
original copyrighted works owned completely by SCO/Caldera before submitting
them for incorporation into the Linux kernel?
Has SCO ever used source code from the Linux kernel or system utilities in
non-GPLed products? Does SCO respect copyrights of other companies?
Has SCO reviewed all agreements and communications about agreements between the
Unix licensees and SCO's predecessors? If so, does SCO believe the Unix
licensees actually agreed to transfer all copyrights, patents, and trade secrets
to AT&T, Novell, and SCO simply by using the Unix source code as the basis
for their Unix offerings?
When SCO purchased the Unix source base from Novell did it realize that it was
not purchasing the Unix trademarks and patents?
How does SCO believe that it can terminate the licenses of companies which
purchased non-terminable licenses to the Unix code base?
How involved has SCO's parent company (Canopy) been in decisions to terminate
IBM and SGI Unix licenses? To send letters to Linux users? To send invoices to
Linux users?
Does SCO still intend to send invoices to Linux users? How many companies or
individuals have purchased Linux-use licenses?
Why can SCO not publish the text of the Linux-use licenses? Does SCO believe a
license with terms known only to one party valid? Does SCO have a policy of not
documenting licensing terms?
SCO has stated that the Linux-use license will not allow redistributing code or
recompiling the kernel. Under those restrictions SCO would be the only company
capable of creating runnable kernels. Is SCO aware of that result?
SCO has stated the lawsuit against IBM is only about contracts. In the press SCO
has accused IBM and other Linux companies of copyright infringement. Does SCO
expect the infringement claims to be covered by the current lawsuit or will SCO
file a separate copyright infringement lawsuit against IBM?
In an attempt to o have Red Hat's claims dismissed SCO stated that the IBM
lawsuit would resolve any copyright issues. But the IBM case is not about
copyright infringement. Can you clarify the company's position?
SCO has stated that it owns Unix trade secrets, copyrights, patents, and
trademarks. It appears that SCO only owns Unix copyrights. Can you clarify the
company's position on the issue?
The Open Group claims to be the holder of the Unix trademark. SCO has also
claimed ownership of this mark. Does SCO plan to file a lawsuit against the Open
Group?
Does SCO respect other company's patents?
Is SCO aware that it will likely be sued for copyright infringement if the GPL
is declared invalid or if SCO attempts to license products under the GPL and
it's own Linux-use license? Does SCO respect the copyrights of Linux kernel
developers?
Does SCO, SCO's parent company, SCO's officers, or major SCO or Canopy
investors pay analysts like Laura DiDio?
Does SCO expect continued revenue from Microsoft and Sun next year?
For the Sun and Microsoft sales, did SCO initiate the discussion or did the
licensee?
It is unusual to give options to purchase stock at discounted prices to a
customer as part of a license purchase. Why did SCO offer stock to Sun?
What was the earliest date SCO formed the opinion that there was infringing code
in the Linux kernel?
What was the earliest date outside legal counsel was contacted about Linux
copyright infringement or Linux relicensing?
Does SCO have a corporate policy against using the GPL? If so, why does SCO make
so many business plans revolve around GPLed products?
Why does SCO feel that HP's indemnification offer means that HP believes there
is infringing code. SCO previously asked all Linux vendors to indemnify their
customers. If SCO believed that was equivalent to admitting copyright
infringement, why does SCO claim that there is no controversy with Red Hat?
SCO has made claims in legal filings that Linux kernel developers are unskilled,
untrained, uncoordinated and that the Linux kernel is useless in enterprise
settings. Yet Linux has outsold SCO Unix offerings in the enterprise market for
half a decade. Many of the technical capabilities which SCO claims were stolen
do not actually exist in SCO products (except for OpenLinux). How does SCO
reconcile these statements?
SCO has also claimed that it wishes to have an open polite dialog with the Linux
kernel developers. Yet SCO continues to make inflammatory statements in legal
filings (see Q29), in posters (http://www.kuwan.net/scoAntiProtest/index.jsp),
and in the press. How does SCO expect to be taken seriously with such a large
difference between statement and action?
When SCO reviewed and compared the Linux and Unix source codes did they check
the origins of the code to determine if it was from a third source such as BSD?
Given the language in IBM's contract:
"Regarding Section 2.01, we agree that modifications and derivative works
prepared by or for you are owned by you. However, ownership of any portion or
portions of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS included in any such modification or derivative
work remains with us."
And your admission that you have not accused IBM of line-by-line copying:
"The trial specifically just addresses Unix derivative code that IBM
contributed to Linux," he says. "This [SCO Intellectual Property
Linux License] would certainly cover that, but in addition the license also
covers line-by-line copying of direct Unix System code from Unix into Linux.
We’ve never accused IBM of direct line-by-line copying."
How do you claim to control works that are copyrighted by IBM and do not contain
any portion of your software products?
The JFS file system was originally developed by IBM for it's OS/2 operating
system, so how can JFS be a derivative of SCO Unix?
Some people charge that Microsoft and Sun did not buy their licenses from you
because of any legal need, but instead bought them to help you scare users away
from Linux. Would you like to comment on that charge?
Almost all of the lines of code that you claim infringe on SCO's IP are
actually copyrighted by other companies. Do you believe you would be able to sue
a Linux user for using code whose copyright you do not own?
Are there any legal issues that make SCO hesitant to send Linux IP invoices?
Of the code in Linux that infringes on your rights, how much is line by line
copied code, how much is obfuscated code and how much is derivatives works?
All of the code in Linux has been viewable by the public for the entire time you
claim code was being put in illegally. Since Caldera and SCO were both
intimately involved in the Linux development process, why didn't your company
object when the code was first put in?
At SCO Forum you labeled code as being from Unix System V that has been
identified as the berkeley packet filter routine code from the BSD operating
system. Is that code properly attributed in the SCO code base?
SGI has stated that the 80 lines of code shown in your presentation were added
in a manner consistent with its contracts and that "SCO has no basis for a
claim against us" http://linuxinsider.com/perl/story/31536.html How do you
respond to that statement
Can you explain the process that SCO uses with it's developers to ensure that
code they put into your products is not the property of closed source companies
or open source projects?
Why can no one who has called SCO been able to purchase a Linux license, will
any be available before 10/15/2003 when the price goes up? If not, what was the
purpose of the tiered pricing?
Since SCO is in this for the long haul and believes that they will ultimately
prevail, why are executives selling their stocks and no executives purchasing
any stock on the open market?
Why did Opinder Bawa CTO of SCO decide to sell all his stock in June, 2003 and
resign effective July, 2003?
Doesn't is make it difficult to continue to develop and support your existing
products without a CTO to head this effort?
What are the terms of the automatic stock divestiure plan? Is there a maximum
number of shares per stock holder participating? A maximum time limit to the
plan?
Why does the SCO Linux license published on it's web site say that if no SCO
'IP' is found in Linux that the license holder cannot get a refund?
Wouldn't it be more equitable for SCO to put any Linux license fees it receives
before proving it's case in court into an escrow fund to be returned to the
licensees if SCO is not entitled to receive the fees?
Why does SCO repeatedly use the blanket term 'IP' when referring to its
claims, rather than using the more legally correct terms: 'copyright',
'patent' or 'trade secret' depending on which area they are claiming.
Why does SCO use the term 'IP' when referring to the IBM case, when in
the past when press they have conceded that they only have a contract
case and not an 'IP' with IBM.
At the SCO Forum at lot of noise was made about the evil GPL, etc. Yet you had a
presentation entitled:"How to Use the GNU Toolkits," given by SCO
engineer Kean Johnston. SCO also says that new veraions of OpenServer and
UnixWare will include open source projects like Samba, Apache web server,
OpenLDAP, Mozilla and others. So, is Open Source only good when it supports
SCO's business and 'evil' the rest of the time?
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/08/19/HNscodivide_1.html SCO users divided
over GPL - CEO says GPL is about 'destroying value'
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/08/19/HNscoplans_1.html SCO updates Unix,
OpenServer product plans
Does copyright law allow the owner of the copyrighted work to forbid the owner
of the infringing work from removing the portion that violates their copyright
and to say instead: you must pay me a license or royalty for the right to use my
work?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IAQ v0.0 - Authored by: ra on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 01:18 PM EDT
- IAQ v0.0 - Authored by: PJ on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 03:06 PM EDT
- IAQ v0.0 - Authored by: lightsail on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 03:04 PM EDT
- IAQ v0.0 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 03:33 PM EDT
- IAQ v0.0 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:24 PM EDT
- IAQ v0.0 - Authored by: AdamBaker on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 04:31 PM EDT
- IAQ v0.0 - Authored by: Dick Gingras on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 06:03 PM EDT
- more q's - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 07:11 PM EDT
- more q's - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:25 PM EDT
- more q's - Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:42 PM EDT
- more q's - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 05:56 AM EDT
- IAQ v0.0 -- improvements - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 08:23 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 01:27 PM EDT |
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
| http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31769.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mac586 on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 02:29 PM EDT |
| "This is terrific news and we're happy to have SGI as part of the open source
family," said Ransom Love, president and CEO of Caldera Systems, Inc. "There's a
great need in Linux for business to have that enterprise-class file technology
and storage capability. Daily, we have enterprise customers asking for these
solutions - particularly where graphics are concerned. With SGI's contribution
and expertise in journaling, throughput and data integrity, we can meet the file
sharing/storage needs of those customers with the best technology available.
That SGI would make this contribution to the open source community says a lot
about their vision and business acumen"
- Ransom Love, CEO
Caldera
You can read the full release here (dated May 20,
1999). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
the report that was so highly criticized
must have caused some customers to call cause
"Forrester stands behind the results of the study, but the company made a
mistake in allowing it be publicized, Colony said. "It just looks bad.
It's a conflict of interest," he said."
linux is growing !!!!
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fava on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 03:55 PM EDT |
| The Utah district
court site lists 3 new documents.
A motion to compel filed by IBM.
A
Memorandum in support or the motion to compel.
Exibits supporting the
motion.
I gather SCO/Canopy are dragging their heels regarding discovery.
Any chance of actually seeing the documents?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mac586 on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 04:38 PM EDT |
| Back in 2000, SGI presented a technical paper at Freenix 2000
USENIX Annual Technical Conference.
As a techie, this is a really good read
if you want to understand how and why SGI developed XFS for IRIX. These same
reasons led to the XFS port for Linux.
Once you get past the technical
aspects of the paper, you encounter section 5. Moving XFS to Open Source.
"SGI's objectives were:
- To ensure the absence of any
intellectual property infringements
- To establish the likely derivation
history to ensure the absence of any code subject to third party terms and
conditions
Section 5.1 follows with a detailed description of
SGI's review process to insure that the Open Source XFS did not infringe upon
code that was not owned by SGI. If you want to learn how to scrub code, this is
the process to follow. Unlike SCO's code presentations to date, SGI's process
included a great deal of analysis. Pasted below is section 5.1, The
Encumbrance Review Process:
We were faced with making
comparisons across several large code bases, and in particular UNIX System V
Release 4.2-MP, BSD4.3 NET/2, BSD4.4-lite and the open source version of XFS. We
performed the following tasks:
- Historical survey
We contacted as many
as possible of the original XFS developers and subsequent significant
maintainers, and asked a series of questions. This information was most useful
as guideposts or to corroborate conclusions from the other parts of the
review.
- Keyword search (all case insensitive)
In each of the non-XFS
code bases, we searched for keywords associated with unique XFS concepts or
technologies (e.g. journal, transaction, etc.). In the XFS code base, we
searched for keywords associated with ownership, concepts and technologies in
the non-XFS code bases (e.g. at&t, berkeley, etc.).
- Literal copy check
Using a specially built tool, we compared every line of each XFS source file
against all of the source in the non-XFS code bases. The comparison ignored
white space, and filtered out some commonly occurring strings (e.g. matching
"i++;" is never going to be helpful).
- Symbol matching
We developed
tools to post-process the ASCII format databases from cscope to generate lists
of symbols and their associated generic type (function, global identifier,
macro, struct, union, enum, struct/union/enum member, typedef, etc.). In each
XFS source file the symbols were extracted and compared against all symbols
found in all the non-XFS code bases. A match occurred when the same symbol name
and type was found in two different source files. Some post-processing of the
symbols was done to include plausible name transformations, e.g. adding an
"xfs_" prefix, or removal of all underscores, etc.
- Prototype matching
Starting with a variant of the mkproto tool, we scanned the source code to
extract ANSI C prototypes. Based on some equivalence classes, "similar" types
were mapped to a smaller number of base types, and then the prototypes compared.
A match occurred when the type of the function and the number and type of the
arguments agreed.
- Check for similarity of function, design, concept or
implementation.
This process is based upon an understanding, and a study, of
the source code. In the XFS code, for each source file, or feature implemented
in a source file, or group of source files implementing a feature, it was
necessary to conduct a review of the implementation of any similar source file
or feature in each of the non-XFS code bases. The objective of this review is to
determine if an issue of potential encumbrance arises as a consequence of
similarity in the function, implementation with respect to algorithms, source
code structure, etc.
- Check for evidence of license agreements.
We
examined the XFS code (especially in comments) to identify any references to
relevant copyrights or license agreements.
In all of the steps above, the
outcome was a list of possible matches. For each match, it was necessary to
establish in the context of the matches (in one or more files), if there was a
real encumbrance issue.
We used a modified version of the tkdiff tool to
graphically highlight the areas of the "match" without the visual confusion of
all of the minutiae of the line-by-line differences. However, the classification
of the matches was ultimately a manual process, based on the professional and
technical skills of the engineers.
It's no wonder that in SGI's open
letter they admit to finding such a paltry amount of "possible" code
infringement (they were so damn thorough on the front end of the process!!)
The point seems to be, however, is that the port of XFS to Linux was open,
and at any time, SCO/Caldera could have intervened and expressed their dismay at
any possible infringement. It is also clear that XFS was never a derived work,
it always belonged to SGI.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AdamBaker on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 04:57 PM EDT |
| PR Newswire have had this press release up for some time. I was waiting
for it to appear on SCO's site before
commenting but it still hasn't made it!
UNIX and UnixWare are used pursuant
to an exclusive license with The Open
Group
This release contains several
inaccuracies which may be useful for those persuing false advertising claims
against SCO.
SCO continues to base its legal claims on well-settled
United States contract laws and United States copyright laws but SCO hasn't
actually filed a copyright infringment case.
IBM is also defending a
questionable licensing scheme
through which it can avoid providing software
indemnification for its customers. We continue to urge IBM to provide legal
indemnification for its Linux customers. run that by me again - I think they
are saying that because the GPL doesn't require IBM to indemnify customers that
is a bad thing but IBM should anyway, even though IBM doesn't distribute
Linux.
UNIX and UnixWare are used pursuant to an exclusive license with
The Open Group what they actually mean is the Unixware license is exclusive
and the Unix one isn't.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Glenn on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 05:26 PM EDT |
SCO reminds me of a movie lo these many years ago called Sex and the Single
Girl. This post has nothing to do about sex, let me hasten to add.
At the end of the movie there was a frantic and muddled chase scene with
everyone chasing everyone and Larry Storch as a motorcycle policeman chasing all
of the chasers. The chase ended up at the airport with Larry getting there after
everyone else was heading off to live happily ever after.
Frustrated Policeman Larry started arresting everyone in sight as well as
anything that moved, including an airplane taking off. No one paid Larry any
mind whatsoever except for some curious stares and finally the men in white
coats when they arrived and took him away.
This leaves us with only one burning question.
Glenn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 06:36 PM EDT |
> I understand all of that. What I'm saying is that no one can really
indemnify
> you against copyright infringement after you have been served with a
written notice by the copyright owner.
Of course not -- but then, the written notice would have to specify exactly what
the copyright infringement was. Which SCO's correspondance doesn't.
Note that SCO is very careful not to send you a written notice: they're
offering you a "license" to something which afterwards could well
end up to reveal itself as being worth exactly nothing - not saying "your
software X is infringing on our copyright in files Y at location Z".
Of course, if it turns out to be a license to vapour, getting your money back
may not be that simple -- all they have to prove is that they couldn't have
known for sure that it was 100% vapour at the time.
It'd be darn difficult for them to be specific for the two code examples
they've shown -- one of them is not theirs, and the other is very probably
running on exactly zero servers at the moment.
Blake S. commented on the "millions of servers out there running that
code". If it's ate_utils.c, SGI would be happy if it were true, because
that means they'd have sold lots of Altix servers quite some time ago (as
current shipments do not include any code based on that snippet).
How they plan to hold anyone with an IA32 system liable for violating their
copyright for something which is not even installed as source on IA32, and only
transformed into object form on a subset of IA64 machines, is well beyond me.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tleps on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 07:25 PM EDT |
Not actually in reference to this one, but I received a reply from Tom
Kaneshige, the author of the article at:
http://www.svbizink.com/headlines/article.asp?aid=5018&iid=320
(Thanks, I believe, to our br3n who found it...). I had written him pointing
out a few issues & redirecting him here to help sort through all the claims
being made. He stated, basically (I forwarded the actual response to PJ, but
respect the don't post others e-mails here... copyright issues and all... yada
yada...) that he was going to write a correction piece & stated that I could
actually call him!! Phone number & everything (asked PJ to - she's much
better at wording then I anymore).
My point is WRITE the authors, be short (they can read things here for the
Magnum Opus...), respectful (esp. of their intelligence - Tom Kaneshige stated
in his response that the "linux is an offshoot" was something he had
been told years ago - by industry analysts ;) & hadn't looked at if such
views were still relevant...) and you might be surprised at the results - they
might well be more interested in expanding their understanding then it at first
appears -esp. when they realize they are being read (can we say "positive
feedback" is much more likely to get the desired response... Psychology
101....).
Thomas [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 09:00 AM EDT |
sorry if this is a repost
i am not having a clear mind day
http://www.esj.com/enterprise/article.asp?EditorialsID=714
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 01:17 PM EDT |
CNNMoney has an article on the lawsuits from an investor's point of view. They mention
SGI's code comparison, though they miss the full import. They think SGI has
"admited some wrongdoing, and quickly fixed it". But SGI found no clearly
infringing code, their cleaning removes code that might be disputed.
Interesting quotes:
"I'm not going to cast moral judgment,"
says George Weiss, an analyst and vice president at Gartner Research. "But there
is a sense one gets that the whole lawsuit is a means to generate revenue and
quick acceleration in stock price in hopes that a buyout would occur from a
deep-pocketed company such as IBM. [The selling] doesn't surprise me."
... SCO investors need to realize that, in many ways, they're betting on
the outcomes of these lawsuits. SCO has engendered so much ill will in the
open-source community, it's hard to imagine the company building a sustainable
business around its products if it loses these cases.
The
last quote is too generous, I think. How can SCO build a sustainable business
even if it wins? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
