|
|
| Want to See One of the Letters to the Fortune 1500? |
 |
|
Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 12:01 PM EST
|
Step right up and take a look. Here is the letter that IBM received from SCO as one of "the notorious gang of the Fortune 1500". Who knew that being a successful company would turn out to be so unpleasant? It's Exhibit I attached to IBM's Amended Counterclaims. Thanks to Palle Raabjerg for transcribing it for us now as text and to our intrepid volunteer who got hold of the paper exhibit from the court. Here is the original of the letter to IBM, so you can compare. You will notice some grammar errors, but they are SCO's, not Palle's. You will also notice that what Darl wrote differs considerably from what OSDL yesterday showed the actual Linux kernel development process to be like. "Numerous unrelated and unknown software developers" indeed. What hogwash.
Now that Linus has a lawyer, maybe they'll take note and consider if the necessary elements for an action for defamation are now available. They are hard cases to win, particularly for a public figure, so they may not want to go that route, but for sure one element is now in place: statements of demonstrably untrue facts. And if Darl, or anyone else, for that matter, repeats Darl's description of the Linux development process now that OSDL has explained how the process really works, that would seem to meet another element: that the party accused of defamation had knowledge that what was said was not true. You also need to prove malice. Heh heh. Herculean task, that. My, a defamation suit would feel good. Maybe not to Linus, though. He's not a litigious guy. And how do you like this sentence?: "Commercial software is built by carefully selected and screened teams of programmers working to build proprietary, secure software." They must not keep up with the news about security problems with Microsoft's proprietary software products. I do. Here's one just today. Secure? That's laughable. The new solutions Microsoft offers for the endless stream of bugs and security woopses is bounties on the heads of virus writers and software and hardware solutions that strip away your privacy and will put us all in a digital prison, metaphorically speaking. How come GNU/Linux software doesn't need such extreme measures to be secure? I don't know, Darl, but I don't think I'd bring up security as a selling point for the proprietary software development process, if I were you. It could lead to embarrassment. I wrote an article on the subject of security, comparing Linux with Microsoft. Bruce Schneier's Cryptogram for November 15, 2003 links to the article and says this about it: "Excellent analysis of the security of Windows vs. Linux." Maybe you should read it too. It provides some statistics on Linux and its superior security record. There appears to be a disconnect between Darl's theory and reality. The theory is that a ragtag, unreliable, unknown group of unsupervised ruffians writes code, some of it maybe stolen, so the end result isn't secure software. Why, you can't even indemnify it, he says. In contrast, according to his theory, a hand-picked, restricted group of upright proprietary software writers produces secure code. But what we see in real life is exactly the opposite. What happened? The scientific method requires us to conclude that Darl's theory simply is not true.
*******************************
May 12. 2003
Mr. Lucio A. Noto
Audit Committee Chair
International Business Machines Corporation
New Orchard Road
Armonk, NY 10504
Dear Lucio:
SCO holds the rights to the UNIX operating system software originally licensed by AT&T to approximately 6,000 companies and institutions worldwide (the "UNIX Licenses"). The vast majority of UNIX software used in enterprise applications today is a derivative work of the software originally distributed under our UNIX Licenses. Like you, we have an obligation to our shareholders to protect our intellectual property and other valuable rights.
In recent years, a UNIX-like operating system has emerged and has been distributed in the enterprise marketplace by various software vendors. This system is called Linux. We believe that Linux is, in material part, an unauthorized derivative of UNIX.
As you may know, the development process for Linux has differed substantially from the development process for other enterprise operating systems. Commercial software is built by carefully selected and screened teams of programmers working to build proprietary, secure software. This process is designed to monitor the security and ownership of intellectual property rights associated with the code.
By contrast, much of Linux has been built from contributions by numerous unrelated and unknown software developers, each contributing a small section of code. There is no mechanism inherent in the Linux development process to assure that intellectual property rights, confidentiality or security are protected. The Linux process does not prevent inclusion of code that has been stolen outright; or developed by improper use of proprietary methods and concepts.
Many Linux contributors were originally UNIX developers who had access to UNIX source code distributed by AT&T and were subject to confidentiality agreements, including confidentiality of the methods and concepts involved in software design. We have evidence that portions of UNIX System V software code have been copied into Linux and that additional other portions of UNIX System V software code have been modified and copied into Linux, seemingly for the purposes of obfuscating their original source.
As a consequence of Linux's unrestricted authoring process, it is not surprising that Linux distributors do not warrant the legal integrity of the Linux code provided to customers. Therefore legal liability that may arise from the Linux developments process may also rest with the end user.
We believe that Linux infringes on our UNIX intellectual property and other rights. We intend to aggressively protect and enforce these rights. Consistent with this effort, on March 7, we initiated legal action against IBM for alleged unfair competition and breach of contract with respect to our UNIX rights. This case is pending in Utah Federal District Court. As you are aware, this case has been widely reported and commented upon in the press. If you would like additional information, a copy of the complaint and response may be viewed at our web site at www.sco.com/scosource.
For the reasons explained above, we have also announced the suspension of our own Linux-related activities until the issues surrounding Linux intellectual property and the attendant risks are better understood and properly resolved.
Similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing violation of our intellectual property or other rights.
SCO's actions may prove unpopular with those who wish to advance or otherwise benefit from Linux as a free software system for use in enterprise applications. However, our property and contract rights are important and valuable: not only to us, but to every individual and every company whose livelihood depends on the continued viability of intellectual and intangible property rights in a digital age.
Yours truly,
THE SCO GROUP
By: Darl McBride
President and CEO
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 12:27 PM EST |
I just went to the URL Darl mentioned and got a 404 error. I guess they don't
want my company's money after all, then.
Steve[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 12:36 PM EST |
Unfortunately the transcript got the URL wrong ; Darl wrote correctly
http://www.sco.com/scosource/ . (Zoom in on the PDF to verify)
HS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 12:50 PM EST |
There appears to be a disconnect between Darl's
theory and
reality. The theory is that a ragtag, unreliable, unknown
group of unsupervised
ruffians writes code, some of it maybe stolen, so
the end result isn't secure
software. Why, you can't even indemnify it, he
says. In contrast, according to
his theory, a hand-picked, restricted
group of upright proprietary software
writers produces secure code. But
what we see in real life is exactly the
opposite. What happened? The
scientific method requires us to conclude that
Darl's theory simply is not
true.
The thing is that Darl
(and others who express similar points of
view) are ignoring some crucial facts
about the two groups of people:
- Free Software is only worked-on by
people that enjoy writing
software and take pride in their work. The
maintainers of Free Software
projects are typically experts in their field,
with a good
understanding of all of the technical aspects of what they are
doing.
- Proprietary software is worked-on by whoever the company that
owns the software hires to work on it. Owing the the reasonably high
salaries
on offer for this type of work, this includes a large number of
people who are
only writing code for a living. A lot of them
aren't actually very good,
but they are good enough to get by because
customers can't see their
code.
- The people in charge of proprietary software development are
often
managers rather than programmers. Darl himself is an example of this.
He
doesn't understand how to write a filesystem, and he doesn't know
very much
about the technology his company sells; he's only interested
in the selling and
making money part.
Commercial pressure is exerted on developers of
proprietary
software. They have to ship by such-and-such a date. They have to
add
such-and-such a feature for such-and-such a customer, whether it's a
good
feature or not, and regardless of whether they have any more
important
technical problems to solve. They also have to comply with
"quality" procedures
like ISO9000, which, I can tell you from personal
experience, have very
little effect on the quality of the end
result, but generate large amounts of
paperwork and waste a vast
amount of time.
All of these extra demands on
their time, together with
often tight deadlines and interference from their
marketing
organisations means that corners are cut, even by the best
commercial developers. FOSS doesn't have that problem; it's released
when it's
ready, and not before. Some people will add features for a
particular customer
on a short timescale, but they might not be accepted
by the maintainers, no
matter how much commercial pressure exists.
Now, to be fair
to commercial developers, some companies are very
much better than others, but
the above four points apply to some extent
to most commercial software
houses. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hombresecreto on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 12:54 PM EST |
Interestingly, SCO Group are merely once again denying their own complicity in
the development of Linux and the importation of any code. That is what is
absolute hogwash. They have been using that self same code and delivering it to
the world under the GPL. Once you have acquiesced to a license, you have made
the choice to go forth with that license. You cannot undo that choice. PLUS -
SCO Group nee Caldera, have made the source code to System V available on their
own website for some time now. It is available under their developers section. I
was just shocked to see that it was available online. Not very protective of
their "Trade secrets."
They need to wake up and smell the fire, it is their pants that are burning.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DrStupid on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 12:57 PM EST |
"Many Linux contributors were originally UNIX developers who ... were
subject to confidentiality agreements, including confidentiality of the methods
and concepts involved in software design. We have evidence that portions of UNIX
System V software code have been copied into Linux ..."
Notice that the two sentences are put into one paragraph to create the
impression that the UNIX developers in the first sentence did the alleged
actions in the second sentence, without actually saying so.
btw: "We believe that Linux infringes on our UNIX intellectual property
and other rights." What other rights? Human rights? ;)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 01:03 PM EST |
Darl would have us believe open source developers are only slightly about virus
writers. This is disturbing because all of Darl's companies software contains
open source programs. (GCC, Samba, Mozilla etc) Now that Darl has devoted so
much bad press to open source, will he hire developers to write (from scratch) a
compiler for SCO, and reverse eng. the MS networking stack (again from scratch),
after all he claims Caldera/SCO can create better software than any ragtag bunch
of pirates.
I think if Darl really does not trust open source it is a bad decision for him
to "allow" such programs to be included in his companies software
distributions.
Beside, any opensource developer that works on updates to fix security bugs in
SCO's distribution branch now is cutting their own throat.
---
Veritas vos liberabit
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: zjimward on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 01:05 PM EST |
First I have always wondered where SCO gets the notion that there are
"unknown software developers" for Linux. All names are registered
for control and tracking. Second, the idea that "no mechanism
inherent...to assure that intellectual property rights..." This is also
ridiculous because Linux is Open Source, meaning every one can look at it at any
time they want to look. Which if it wasn't SCO wouldn't know if there was or
wasn't code of theirs in Linux. Unlike Microsoft which doesn't have a means
for any developer outside MS to see their code. Those that may have signed
"confidentiality agreements" while working with unix companies I'm
sure for one couldn't remember ever bit of code they wrote, being a programmer
I know this is true. Also these agreements have expiration dates or like me with
some companies they may have never signed one or refused. Another thing I
noticed is SCO has said to the courts that the don't know how any one would
feel that they were going to sue them, for example Red Hat. In this letter they
state, "aggressively protect and enforce these rights", this
normally means legal action will be taken if necessary. They even backed up that
idea by stating that they've taken such action against IBM.
Thanks for posting this letter. I've wondered for a long time what was stated
in it. Seems like it only gives IBM more detailed data of how two-faced SCO has
been in their statements to the courts.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 01:23 PM EST |
I wonder if SCO/McBride understand that Linux is just a kernel, and by itself,
isn't really Unix-like. Without the GNU applications, it is really just a
kernel with a POSIX-compliant layer, a kernel that can be swapped out and
replaced with BSD's or GNU's Hurd. I believe Debian already runs on BSD.
I don't see anything that would prevent someone from writing a Windows- or
Mac-like interface that runs on top of the kernel. It would in no way resemble
Unix.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 01:29 PM EST |
Hello all,
SCO knew better years before they wrote "by numerous unrelated and unknown
software developers". Otherwise they would have been a very bad company
to offer Professional Services and contribute code for almost a decade.
One doesn't need the OSDL paper to see the lies -- but it comes handy :-))
caspar[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eibhear on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 01:35 PM EST |
Darl-boy says:
Commercial software is built by carefully
selected and
screened teams of programmers
For 5-and-a-half
years, I worked in the European development centre of one of the largest
software companies in the world (and it wasn't Microsoft). A lot of the software
engineers there were bloody good at their jobs and it was a pleasure to work
with them. But not once in my experience did our employer screen employees
beyond the standard reference check.
There was one occasion, however,
when the company was doing some work for the British Ministry of Defence, and
one of my best buddies was working on the cryptographic networking layer of the
project. He was screened by the MoD, and (needless to say) cleared. This, I
might add, despite the fact that my friend comes from one of the more entrenched
nationalist communities of West Belfast in Northern Ireland.
Yeah.
Screening.
I'd be very surprised if the list of companies that do screen
programmers "to monitor the security ... associated with the code" is long.
Darl-boy obviously didn't leave his own special fantasy world when he came up
with that line of argument. I'd love to see the list of screening checks SCO
programmers go through when they're being hired. Is it similar to the list of
checks SCO applies when hiring lawyers?
Éibhear [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT: Screening - Authored by: bruzie on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 03:35 PM EST
- OT: Screening - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 06:17 AM EST
- Screening - Authored by: rand on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 09:37 PM EST
- Screening - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 01:19 AM EST
- Get Real - Authored by: Ruidh on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 08:38 PM EST
- Screening - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 02:22 AM EST
- Screening - what it actually means - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 03:06 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: jbeadle on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 02:00 PM EST |
Hmmmm. Lessee now...
SCO sues IBM in March for a billion. Then they send this
"educational" letter to IBM in May.
Seems their mailing list needed a sanity check...
-jb
PS - PJ, if I can do anything in the way of transcription, etc.,
please let me know.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uw_dwarf on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 02:15 PM EST |
I have had the pleasure of working, transoceanically, with Andrew Morton. I
know he knows the software development process, the importance of
examining changes, and the importance of knowing something about the
contributors. He has authority in a code management methodology that a lot of
companies don't have internally. Further, he takes the associated
responsibility seriously. I'd love to have my code constructively reviewed by
two independent reviewers who aren't working to someone else's
timeline.
The reason many software companies don't usually have this kind
of inspection and control is, of course, the cost of doing it. The
bang-for-the-buck is not there in traditional closed shops, so it's not done.
But where the dollars are not a consideration, the bang-for-the-buck factor is
much higher (one could make a case for "infinite," but I will not count time as
zero-cost). You can't beat the price of volunteers, whether their work is
subsidised or not. The reward is a higher quality product with shared
responsibility and ownership. The conjunction of these two concepts doesn't
make any sense in a "minimise economic cost to me to maximise economic
return to me" worldview.
And there's the rub for SCO and
Microsoft. The Linux kernel isn't about money, it's a successful experiment in
quality software. The software libre movement isn't about money, it's
about the right to use and modify software so it meets the acquirers' needs.
The values of the Linux and software libre communities are different from
the values of companies expected to provide financial gain for their
stockholders. If your value system is threatened, you attack it any way you
can, fairly or not. SCO are fighting a war over a socio-economic value system.
In their paradigm, misrepresentation such as this is a weapon. What they say
doesn't have to be true, just believable. If they can poison the ground so the
competing paradigm can't take root, that's a victory for them.
Soldier
on.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mark_Edwards on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 02:30 PM EST |
Thanks for the good laugh PJ !
I find it amazing that Darl is so stupid.. Did they think
people would not check out what he was saying? small
little bits like
1) The only reason they own this source code is because
they sold Linux for a number of years
2) They don't own unix just the source code for one
version
3) That a number of these "unknown" programmers were their
own programmers
4) proprietry software being more secure? nuff said
5) The fact that in the time between their purchase of the
sourcecode & Jan 2003 that they made numberous press
announcements about the fact SMP (Which caldera donated
hardware for the development of!)/NUMA/RCU were in their
own distribution of linux as well as the press of how they
were "unifying" unix & linux code to make the ultimate
distribution
6) that Darls meaning of "Linux-related activities"
actually means their own distribution that they
contributed to (It was a very poor distribution though..
must of lasted all of 10 minutes on my machine before
red-hat was placed over it!)
once again PJ, thanks for the good laugh. I needed that
after a long day at work !
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 02:43 PM EST |
... is that a 16 year old (Marcello, maintainer for 2.4 for example) can
write WAY better code than all of SCO's carefully screened employees
together. In the end, SCO will disappear because they product sucks. It
always did, and always will. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 02:51 PM EST |
| "Commercial software is built by carefully selected and screened teams of
programmers working to build proprietary, secure software."
Yes, I'm sure
you've personally interviewed and run background checks on every employee of
that Bangalore sweat-shop that's writing your code. I'm sure that five years ago
you carefully checked every fact in every resume before you hired anybody you
could find to take the job, before you shipped their job off shore.
That's
beyond hypocrisy. That's beyond cynicism. It is a bald-faced lie! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: minkwe on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 03:06 PM EST |
It doesn't seem as if the writer of the letter actually knew that it was being
sent to IBM, the same company they sued. It looks like Darl just signed 1500
letters and had his secretary fill in the blanks.
---
There are only two choices in life. You either conform the truth to your desire,
or you conform your desire to the truth. Which choice are you making?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 03:47 PM EST |
I think it is time for all projects based on the GPL to retract SCO/Calderas
licence to distribute their software. Some of them discussed the possibilitiy of
removing compatibility with OpenServer, but decided not to because that would
actually harm the users more than SCO.
As I see it, SCO has declared the GPL invalid in their opinion and therefore
they should not be allowed to bundle such software as GCC and Samba with their
operating systems.
Users wanting to use this software on SCO platforms could then download tarballs
from official sites and install by themselves.
The operating systems distributed by SCO are dead anyway.
This would only speed up the process of migrating away from this rotting
carcass.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dodger on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 05:03 PM EST |
1. I logged into ftp.sco.com as anonymous, phoney email, and
was able to download the sources to UnitedLinux 3.1.1. on 26. Nov. 2003.
therefore, "...suspension of our own Linux related activities..." is
false.
2. "We believe that Linux infringes.... We intend to aggressively protect
our rights." DEAR SCO, you can believe in what ever you want to believe
in. That is your right. We do not want to stop you or challenge your beliefs. As
to whether or not Linux infringes on your rights, that is a legal matter that
will be resolved in a court of law.
However, based upon point 1. above, I strongly suggest you do not allow
downloads of Linux from your web site, since it weakens your case, since you are
STILL DISTRIBUTING what you claim is private, secret, intellectual property,
etc. WELL IT ISN'T ANY MORE THANKS TO YOU.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pannomatte on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 05:07 PM EST |
Hi,
Longtime lurker First time poster her. I just wanted to say thanks to you and
yours for creating this truly remarkable stop along the information
superhighway. I hope you decide to write a book when all is said and done. You
deserve to be a best selling author. After you get rich selling the movie rights
who would you like to see playing the part of "PJ" . You probably
allready have friends in Hollywood and don't evan know it. Peace Goodwill and
most certainly
Kind Regards
Daniel Jircik[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 05:11 PM EST |
Folks:
It seems a little silly for us to keep arguing the truth. Has this ever been
about the truth, outside the courtroom?
This has been an advertising campaign from the start. When has the success of an
advertising campaign ever depended on the truth?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 05:40 PM EST |
| Groklaw got linked from /. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fava on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 05:44 PM EST |
The vast majority of UNIX software used in enterprise applications
today is a derivative work of the software originally distributed under our UNIX
Licenses.
Is Darl actually trying to say that ALL unix software,
including application software, is a derivative of SysV?
He is on crack.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Hygrocybe on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 05:51 PM EST |
After reading the pdf file of the letter I am angry, very angry - the statements
are outright distortion and could even be construed as deliberate lies. How
dare Mr McBride insult the Linux community in the way he does ? This man needs
more than just a slap on the wrist !
Since Darl disputes the GPL has any force at all, he must therefore agree that
normal copyright law prevails. Very good, why not use that immediately against
him ? There is a lot of talk about this but I think it needs action. I suggest
it is now time for all holders of Linux copyright to individually withdraw their
permission to SCO, but in a united and coordinated action. Mass and very
publicised action of that type would stagger SCO because it would probably be a
very negative piece of information as regards speculative investment. And in my
opinion, their Achilles heel is the share price, if that dives, they are
finished.
I wonder if it is practicable for "the Groklaw team" to draft or
produce a standard letter that could than be made available for all copyright
holders ? Is this a good idea ? I don't know, but at the moment, I am angry
and I don't just want to set fire to someone's trousers.
---
Lamington Nat Park[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: trox on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 06:02 PM EST |
| Happy Thanksgiving to Linux
in The Inquirer
Check it out, good read and thumbs up to Groklaw. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: roxyb on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 06:05 PM EST |
| ...or developed by improper use of proprietary methods
and
concepts.
Caveat, I'm European-based, and yes, I know a lot about
laws in most EU contries (comes from being a security
officer).
In
Europe, this is perfectly legal. You may write into a
contract that the staff
isn't allowed to utilise any
proprietary methods and concepts after they have
quit
working for you, but it will be disallowed in nearly every
court in
Europe as being overly broad and invalid
(exception, of course, is if National
Security is
affected). A "Company/Corporation/Legal Entity" may sign
a
licensing deal that prohibits it from using specific
methods and concepts
except as specified, but all (former)
staff is allowed to do whatever they
like about the
contents of their brains, especially after they quit, with
the exception of revealing trade secrets and their source.
I.e., I may
implement an audit subsystem in Linux, even
though I have knowledge of the
same subsystems in AIX,
OSF/1 and SecureWare (now HP), but I may not reveal
how
the subsystem is built in a specific implementation.
This means that
SCOs current approach (based on methods
and concepts) is invalid in Europe and
would be laughed
out of court. Question is, how is the legal situation in
the US? Federal statues or State statues? Darron?
Roland Buresund
---
--
I'm Still Standing...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 06:05 PM EST |
I think that when SCO says "secure code" they don't mean what we
all think it means. They mean secure from the "intellectual
property" point of view. There are a couple spots in the letter which make
that fairly obvious.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: James on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 06:15 PM EST |
Many Linux contributors were originally UNIX developers who had
access to UNIX source code distributed by AT&T and were subject to
confidentiality agreements, including confidentiality of the methods and
concepts involved in software design.
So now it is a crime
to be a good programmer? Knowing methods of operating system development put
you in violation of SCO's IP? Someone please get me some of whatever the hell
it is they're smoking... please. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 06:23 PM EST |
I suspect that Darl is unable to get his head around the idea that anybody would
do anything as complex, demanding and often plain tedious as writing software
and then giving it away.
We also see a similar disbelief within Microsoft; as far as can be determined
Bill Gates never wrote a line of code he did not intend to use for financial
gain and doesn't understand why anybody else wouldn't behave the same.
Neither the fly-speck SCO, nor the 20 ton elephant Microsoft can understand how
and why Linux exists and competes with commercial products that have cost
millions to develop.
The answer is, of course, because Linux meets a demand that other products
don't.
SCOs response is to attack the basis of Linux, the skills the programmers have.
If SCO can establish a legal principle that prevents programmers transfering
skills from one product to another they will stifle innovation (which is ideal
for them as they are a moribund company that long ago gave up on creating new
products.)
As it happens, Microsoft would also like to see innovation in the computer
market slowed to a crawl. Every new release of Windows costs more to develop
and takes longer to return a profit. If there is a product and a development
process that is free of the costs found in commercial software development it is
highly disruptive to companies such as SCO and Microsoft. Neither company can
easily change from it's current course because of the financial chains that
bind them. SCOs problem is a lack of money; Microsofts problem is a surfit of
money. Both companies have to answer to their shareholders to the extent that
neither is really a software company any more; each is really a money company
with a small interest in programming.
SCO will die. It may take five weeks, or five years. But eventually the market
will realise that any big money win is a distant and unlikely prospect. IBM can
afford to keep SCO in the courts for years, never actually dealing a death blow,
but steadily draining the life from SCO till it just fades away.
Microsoft will have to learn to live with Linux. This process will be most
entertaining. I predict that within 5 years Microsoft will be claiming to have
always believed in free software and open development. After all, they changed
from ignoring the Internet to making it a central part of all product
development in six months.
What we are seeing is the death of the idea that software development is
dependent on a high cost environment. Open source development is similar to
outsourcing and just as tempting to any company trying to reduce costs. If the
old software companies are to survive that have to start to do much better at
adding value and adding services. Using the courts as a substitute for product
and service development is a big mistake; even in the unlikely event of a final
favourable legal decision you end up as the proud sole owner of technology that
is years out of date and all your compeditors disappearing over the horizon...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 06:29 PM EST |
In my humble opinion, I view the letter as a simple and fair warning to
operators of Linux that there could be future problems with using Linux. As far
as I can tell they have a very valid point about the source of Linux code. If
noone can prove they wrote the code then the fact that they did not steal said
code from the SCO property UNIX. Not that should ever stop Linux because if
that leak existed it should have been stopped initially and not fought now. I
guess thier security is just as secure as some supposed secure code. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 06:31 PM EST |
| We can see that Darl has said that open source software is no good; it's
insecure and can't be trusted. So maybe someone should start a campain or
something to get Darl to remove all OS/GPL software from Unixware &
Openserver; both from being disrtibuted as applications and its use in the
development process. I don't know how well the SCO products would work without a
compiler (GCC); they couldn't even develope a single line of code. Add to that
that they would also lose utilities like Apache, Samba, OpenSSL, OpenSSH,
Mozilla, Squid, cdrtools, etc.
The thing is how do we high light these
facts, and get Darl to publicly recognise their (SCO's) total reliance on OS
software to get their proprietary software out the door.
Brian [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 06:40 PM EST |
Why, and how, would a developer write code which then obfuscates their original
code? After writing the code twice the first version somehow became different
from what they actually typed?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 06:40 PM EST |
This comment is by necessity posted anonymously.
I don't know what planet Darl is from, but I suspect it is one where they
don't do software development like we do here on planet Earth. His statement
"carefully selected and screened teams of programmers" is wilder
than laughable.
I've worked for many years for a company that implements major financial
systems all over the world. Most of the programmers I have met in my time here
are great people. Many have never seen a sober morning in an entire project!
We make things work in the end, like most companies do, but what goes on while
we do it would raise most people's hair!
Most programmers, including myself, are more artists than they are engineers and
therefore have the associated baggage of complexes and insecurities. To suggest
that programmers working for a wage can produce better and more secure work than
programmers working for nothing is patent nonsense. Ego motivates many
programmers - I don't need to name the 'industry leaders' that might fit the
profile of 'power mad geek'!
"carefully screened" indeed!
Rubbish!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 06:43 PM EST |
| No, that is a different letter. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 07:09 PM EST |
Don't forget that Redhat is suing SCO for damages. This will surely bolster
their accusations of false advertising and deceptive practices.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 07:52 PM EST |
I've written my own letter, based on SCO's. I found it very striking
that I had to edit some parts only very slightly to get it to show my
opinion, instead of mr McBrides:
Dear mr Mcbride,
SCO has recently bought rights to a very old version of the UNIX
operating system. Much of this system is released under an open
source licence, and it has formed the basis for many UNIX-like
operating systems, containing countless new features and enhancements
on the original UNIX code. SCO now seems to claim that all results
of those years of development belong to SCO.
One of the operating systems roughly based on UNIX, built by following
published standards, together with much research and development
completely unrelated to SCO, is linux. We believe that SCO's claims
to owning code in linux are without basis.
As you may know, the development process for Linux has differed
substantially from the development process for other enterprise
operating systems. Commercial software is built by a small,
well-controled group of carfully selected programmers. This process
is designed to monitor, closely guard, and keep secret as much as
possible, including the orginisation of development and ownership of
intellectual property rights associated with the code.
By contrast, much of Linux has been built from contributions by people
known to anyone who cares to check, each by contributing code through
a chain of people who actually look at the submitted code. This model
tries to insure, among other things, that intellectual property
rights, confidentiality and security are protected. The linux process
does not prevent inclusion of code that has been stolen outright, but
makes the process open to anyone to see and investigate, making it
likely that such cases are exposed. This makes it much better suited
to guarding intellectual property than the commercial development
model, where such checks are impossible.
As a result of distributors often not being original authors, it is
not surprising that Linux distributors cannot warrant the legal
integrity of the Linux code provided to customers, any more than
commercial providers of software do. However, the Linux developers
have made perfectly clear that any issues will be dealt with: as soon
as someone can prove that a piece of code is not in the kernel
legitimetely, it will be removed and replaces by code that is legally
valid.
We believe that claims of infringement by Linux are, as yet,
unsubstantiated, and given SCO's meager scraps of supposed proof, are
not likely to be true. However, the open source community and the Linux
developers respect intellectual property, and if such proof is offered
then any issue will be dealt with, without need for threats and
lawsuits.
Similar to the analogous case of the AT&T/BSD debacle, we are willing
to take all actions necessary to debunk unsubstantiated claims of
ownership of our work.
The open source communities efforts may prove unpopular with those who
seem to think markets are more importend than actual people, and would
like to make shitloads of money by intimidating people. However, our
property and rights are important and valuable: not only to us, but to
every individual and every company who values freedom of speech and
thought in a digital age.
Yours truly,
Jan de Vos
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 08:06 PM EST |
The letter is clearly badly written, but I guess that, on the "security
issue", SCO would argue that its reference to "secure" is
intended to refer only to security from an IPR infringement point of view.
Having said this, I did not yet see one of the most obvious reactions to the
"open vs. proprietary" argument (but perhaps I did not read enough
on the subject yet ...): The source code of proprietary software is usually not
disclosed or is disclosed under a license agreement with strict confidentiality
provisions (which in general prohibits the licensee to attack the licensor ...),
which means that any discovery of IPR infringement in a part of a complex system
as an operating system would never be discovered. I think the world would be in
for a surprise if an independent auditor was allowed to check the source code of
certain proprietary operating systems for IP infringement ...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jeff on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 08:11 PM EST |
"Why, you can't even indemnify it, he says."
Personally, I think
that subject of indemnification is a little silly anyway.
Commercial software
makers do not take any real responisbility for their
products, except perhaps
for the media they deliever it on. So in this
regard, they are no different
than free software (except for price).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 09:05 PM EST |
Has anyone pointed out to Darl that Open Source code can be checked for stolen
code by anyone. Proprietary code can not, since it is hidden and only allowed
to be viewed by its owners. So, how can anyone say that Open Source code is
more prone to using stolen code than proprietary code?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 01:09 AM EST |
The GPL says: "4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute
the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and
will automatically terminate your rights under this License."
IBM accused SCO of attempting to sublicense Linux under a license incompatible
with the GPL, and therefore forfeiting its rights under the GPL. If you agree
with IBM's position, and I do, we don't have to wait for SCO to do anything
else for its rights to Linux under the GPL to be terminated.
I'd like to discuss the question of exactly which GPL'd programs SCO is now
distributing after forfeiting its GPL rights to those programs.
The obvious programs are any programs containing the Linux kernel, since that is
what SCO tried to sublicense.
Or was it? Do we have any evidence that SCO tried to get users of Redhat
distributions to buy SCO's license for their entire distributions? In that
case SCO foreited its GPL rights to every GPL'd program in the distributions,
which probably includes most of the GPL'd programs in all the products SCO
distributes.
Until we come up with such evidence, let's see for what programs the GPL rights
were forfeited by SCO under the assumption that SCO's attempt involved just the
kernel.
The first example is the kernel in SCO's Linux distribution.
Are there any others? I don't think SCO forfeited its GPL rights to a program
just because it makes kernel calls, because the kernel license allows
proprietary programs to make kernel calls. However there might still be
programs licensed by the GPL without this exception, that are essentially
extensions of the kernel. Has SCO forfeited its GPL rights to such a program?
To the callers of such a program?
What products are included in SCO's Linux distribution? Has SCO lost its GPL
rights to any of them outside the kernel?
That may depend on exactly
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Greg on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 01:50 AM EST |
PJ,
I happen to think the issue is about how will people
create wealth in the future.
They like the Old model.
Linux is a new model.
And Microsoft and friends are not happy.
They will have to change or stop operating.
This is one of their last stands...
I posted this in another area on this site.
Deep in a Thread...
I think it would be appropriate here:
"...is this forum [just] a place to vent feelings?
I would have to argue that it is now something different.
I would have to suggest what is happening is that with
this SCO legal stand we are entering a new phase:
The overall mechanism of creating wealth has changed.
The year 2004 will go down in history as the year
either we won a revolution in how wealth is created
or we are enslaved by mechnisms of old.
There is no "Corporate Greed" as some have mentioned.
There are those that work to use capitalizstic systems
as opportunists to gain wealth. This I beleive is
what people refer to as "corporate greed"."
" ...it is my suggestion that you are now going
to be leading the change in mind share of a different
model for creating wealth.
The current models are not working. (SCO and Microsoft)
Companies that are embracing it are of course our
Red Hat and SuSe companies. The old guard is now racing to
better understand this change. (IBM and Novell)
Some of the others are standing on the sidelines.
(Sun Micro is on the fence and worried about Solaris.)
(HP is ready to fall either way.)
But if I suggest what I say is true THIS forum or
some other forum will have to be created to help
the general public and those opposed to or for
the ideas behind GPL to understand they cannot stop it.
Or if they do, it will come back in another form.
Just as we do not pay for the air we breath, the concept
that the OS can also be as free as the air we breath
can provide a very nice platform for people to
make money, be profitable and make a living.
(Last time I checked food, clothing and shelter were not
free, or not free in a manner I care to live with.)
Therefore, I suggest the following:
1) Above "legal Links": GPL Purpose
(With detailed links of what GPL is and what it does
for companies that use it.)
2) Below GPL Purpose: GPL Wealth
(With detailed discussions on how the use of GPL
can create wealth within a community. And any
associated links.)"
"I have thought extensivly about what is
going on here and I am convinced this is
not just SCO trying to be ugly with the
Linux community.
We are on the eve of a new technical
revolution that has already started.
Let's call this creation of Software Services
based on the following:
Non-Deterministic Evolution (Linux)
Where corporations can only really evolve
software on a more deterministic evolution (MS).
Where the use of Non-Deterministic Evolution
is more in line with what the whole desires.
The OS is becoming more ubiquitus and that there
will be the need for many different operating
systems and ways of representing these systems.
But future efforts, the applied use of resources
to generate the finiancial rewards of more
cash than what was put into the effort, will
require a base of code that can be used as an
asset and not a liability.
In the most interesting case on this kind of
thinking applied is the Microsoft OS.
They have a deterministic evolution type model.
Do they ask what is needed? Yes. But they
will put into their systems what will benefit
their overall good.
Thus, for the users the future benefit in general
becomes more of a liability than an asset.
Since there will be no choice in the future release
of software that will require a company to purchase other
licenses and services.
The Non-Derterministic Evolution model assumes that
the customer has already applied the effort.
The investment has been made today. And the services
that are required in terms of adding value need
to be added to what is already there.
A-la the creation of WEALTH on a different level.
I can assure you that Microsoft, IBM, Sun Micro and
others have run hundreds of spreadsheets outlining
what the potential financial rewards will be to
manage this potential change in technology.
The SCO thing is only the beginning.
So the faster the Linux community understands what
is at hand here and those coporations that have
the most to loose will have only time on thier
hands and hopes of ignorance to ensure their
highjacking is successful."
I think this is a better place for
this type of discussion.
Does anyone else think there is something
fishy going on here...
Thanks
Greg[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 02:10 AM EST |
"Dear Lucio,"
Pretty arrogant to address a letter like this, a form extortion letter, in such
a personal manner. Does Darl have mob ties?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 03:21 AM EST |
Being not versed in the law myself - can class action suits be brought for
defamation? And isn't there a good case here for withdrawing permission for
the use of all components parts in SCO-sold software that are based on FOSS,
potentially even via an immediate injunction?
That would either flush out what SCO think they have or call their bluff
immediately as it is apparently reported that cashflow is starting to become a
problem.
The latter could prove ironic as they maybe could end up getting sued for
payment - by their own lawyers ;-).
Keep up the good work.
I'm 100% for protection of IP, so maybe it's time we indeed do just that.
Sustainable business is never built on law suits, it's built on quality. SCO
appears to have missed that particular trick in a rather spectacular fashion.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 07:30 AM EST |
The original court case here was a contractual complain with IBM. SCO's
reasoning is along the lines of:
1) IBM licensed System V code from
someone that eventually became SCO.
2) Within that license, SCO claims
rights to all derivative works.
3) IBM took code out of AIX (a derivative
work, in SCO's words) and placed it into Linux.
4) SCO own the code placed
into Linux, since it is a derivative work of AIX, and can file for copyright
infringement.
Seems to me that the most common argument against the GPL
applies here just as well. Microsoft, SCO, and others claim that the GPL is viral, ie that
once you include GPL code in your product you are bound by the GPL. Seems to me
that SCO's claims for the original complaint are similarly viral - potentially
even more so.
If the System V license does indeed mean that IBM cannot
distribute parts of AIX that are unrelated to the original Sys V without needing
to pay SCO royalties, then the license propagates - and instead of a
self-replicating license that gives you the right to essentially do whatever you
like with the code, you end up with a license that forces you to pay SCO
royalties.
Maybe not too useful in a courtroom (IANAL, I'm a techie),
but worth pointing out in the PR war. Might be good for knocking a few dollars
off SCO's share price if someone were to publicly point out that the System V
license is just as "viral" as the GPL, and considerably more costly and
restrictive. Certainly if SCO are going to claim that the GPL is invalid
because of its self-replicating nature, then IBM can claim that the System V
license is invalid for exactly the same reasons. Any claims that SCO make
against the GPL apply equally to their own Sys V license.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pogson on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 07:56 AM EST |
| Here is a Canadian story about the music industry trying to obtain compensation
for unlicensed downloads from the WWW:
CTV
Going after the ISP is like going after the end
user, but just a little higher up the food chain... ---
A problem is an
opportunity [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 10:15 AM EST |
I would like to nominate Darl McBride as the suicide bomber of the year for
2003! Does anyone know of a more suitable candidate?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fxbushman on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 11:46 AM EST |
| A truth-speaking article in PCPRO about the letter is
here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 12:43 PM EST |
I wonder after reading this letter from a CEO of company, in which one might
have invested. And the CEO who more looks more like a parasite want to earn not
by creating challenge products, but by blackmailing!!!.
Will there be any numb headed shareholder left holding SCO options!!!! with such
CEO running the company. I wish they wake up before losing what may be
leftover.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 01:48 PM EST |
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if proof is really the question here. It
seems that doubt is the real issue. It is my understanding that these sorts of
civil cases don't require the strong burden of proof required in criminal
cases, but only preponderance of evidence, or something along those lines.
Raising the likelihood of something having happened is not as difficult a job as
proving that something did happen.
I think it is foolish to imagine that a court is going to view this whole matter
in quite the same way the readers of this site do. For that reason I think all
the emotion and invective invested in charactrizing SCO as a gang of liars,
cheats, and thieves, while possibly accurate, is mis-directed and unproductive.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SteveS on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 02:11 PM EST |
what a hoot - Just took a look at Yahoo's "Real Time" stock page
and saw someone working through Island has orders in for 1000 shares each one at
$1 and one for .03...
Could this be someones idea of commentary?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ecn?s=SCOX[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Downing on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 02:50 PM EST |
| Favorable mention by Bruce Schneier. Wow! For you, as person not of related
fields, to be commended by Mr. Schneier on a security related article is another
feather in your cap. ---
Thomas Downing
Principal Member Technical
Staff
IPC Information Systems, Inc. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jlp on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 03:55 PM EST |
The article featured on zdnet australia at the following location, sorry I
cannot get the link to copy. Anyway, it plainly states that Linux is based on
Unix. I sent an email to the editor in the hopes that they will correct the
error.
---
Argue for your limitations; And sure enough they are![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 07:46 PM EST |
"Commercial software is built by carefully selected and screened teams of
programmers working to build proprietary, secure software."
Hey, wait a second! These aren't the same "carefully selected"
programmers that SCO claims "inadvertently" put SCO code under GPL
are they?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 08:35 PM EST |
This quote from the letter:
"Similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are
prepared to take all actions necessary ..."
should be all RH needs to put an end to SCO's BS about dismissal. The
"methods" (lawsuits and threats of suits, DMCA-sanctioned spying,
etc.) of RIAA are well known and well documented in the press. One can only
wonder when SCO will file suit against a 12-year old; I wouldn't put it past
them.
Thanks, Darl. That was the line RH needed to shut you up.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 09:16 PM EST |
i think he has posted about you before tho
but it is nice when lawyers recognize the worth
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001603.shtml
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hombresecreto on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 10:28 PM EST |
I can't provide a link anymore. The "DDoS attack" conveniently
removed many links and many documents. :(
That is one of the reasons that I don't believe there ever was a DDoS attack.
It was more like a Pine-Sol attack to sweep their website.
However, things are not removed from the world -bits have just shifted. A
forensic search would recover what was removed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 11:59 PM EST |
| Commercial software is built by carefully selected and screened teams of
programmers working to build proprietary, secure software. After reading
the comments, 'nuff said. The vast majority of UNIX software used in
enterprise applications today is a derivative work of the software originally
distributed under our UNIX Licenses. Substitute MS-DOS for UNIX. Many
retail chain cash registers are run by MS-DOS. Substitute CP/M for MS-DOS.
Does this mean that SCO will be suing MS because MS-DOS is an "unauthorized
derivative" of CP/M? SCO owns the rights to CP/M. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 07:14 AM EST |
i wonder. didn't they, by distributing GNU/linux and linux kernel, released
their "intellectual property" that "may" be part of
linux kernel under GPL? and if they conformed to GPL with it then they can't
really take a step back, right? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 09:42 AM EST |
<P>"Commercial software is built by carefully selected and screened
teams of programmers working to build proprietary, secure software."
<P>The programming team for commercial software is composed of programmers
who:
<OL>
<li>Are picked by managers who may have their own agendas, and who may be
unable to spot a good programmer
<li>were unemployed at the time the project started, or approaching the
end of employment elsewhere
<li>were in the company's vicinity or willing to relocate (few companies
are set up for distributed project development)
<li>were willing to work for the offered salary
<li>had a resume showing a certain skill level in the programming
language
<li>can pass a drug test, and have no serious criminal convictions
<li>will be working on a given code segment, with their code guaranteed to
be included in the finished product as long as it functions, however poorly.
</OL>
<P>Basically ... the proprietary dev team members are picked from the
available local talent willing to trade work for salary for a given company.
This is often far from the best talent in the area.
<P>The Linux Dev team (and other OSS teams) is composed of programmers
who:
<OL><li>can be anywhere on the planet
<li>may work for free or for salary, part time or full time
<li>can write code good enough to impress the rest of the team and get
their work accepted - code has to survive a detailed discussion of its merits
before inclusion
<li>work on projects they like and that they know they excel at
</OL>
<P>Any OSS project is primarily a self-selected team, drawing from a
world-wide talent pool, driven as much by ego as economics, where your
<B>true</B> peers review your work, and the goal is excellence and
not the next marketing release date. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 01 2003 @ 11:22 AM EST |
| How many times can you use the word MAY in a document.
There legal team
is "dead sure" enough about all this that the word MAY is used.
Well,
then, I MAY send a check (!NOT).
B
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
