|
|
| SCO Says Court Agrees to Keep the Code Secret |
 |
|
Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 04:55 AM EST
|
There is no corroboration on this yet, but Andrew Colley of ZDNET Australia is reporting that Blake Stowell says that when SCO shows its code next month, it won't be open to the public. According to him, the court has given them permission to show the code to a closed court. IBM, the article says, insisted that the code be revealed publicly, and at first the judge agreed, but now, according to Stowell, that has changed.
"'We can't just open this up to the public. The minute we open it up we have in fact opened it up to the public and we can't restrict it in the future from a proprietary standpoint,' said SCO CEO Darl McBride at conference in August this year.
"However, SCO public relations director Blake Stowell today said that the company had secured permission to present the code to a closed court.
"'In other words, SCO will present this evidence to the jury, the judge and to the defendant (IBM), but it will remain confidential. No one in the public will get to see this code,' said Stowell.
"It's the first clear sign that the open source community, which has long been frustrated with SCO's secrecy over the code, will never get a chance to see the code nipping at the heart of its development ethos." "Never" might be a stretch. And I'm not so sure it's a "clear sign" if it's only coming from SCO, but it's something to start to track. The parties to this dispute are not the only ones with an interest in this code. So, if this news proves true, there may very well be those who will be asking the judge to change her mind by contesting the protective order.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:01 AM EST |
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but surely disclosing the code will not
change its copyright status at all. If SCO own the copyright to this code, then
that ownership will still stand. They are also contesting that this code is also
already disclosed, since it is in the Linux kernel.
I suspect
that this is a smart move by SCO to restrict the number of people who can trace
the code's history. There would be a big incentive for thousands of OSS people
to look at this , but how many people can IBM spare? SCO have a much better
chance of one or more files not being examined closely if viewing is
restricted.
Sean Ellis (sellis@geo-removethis-cities.com) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO Says Court Agrees to Keep the Code Secret - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:44 AM EST
- SCO Says Court Agrees to Keep the Code Secret - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 06:30 AM EST
- SCO Says Court Agrees to Keep the Code Secret - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 08:29 AM EST
- I'm thinking: So What! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 11:03 AM EST
- SCO Says Court Agrees to Keep the Code Secret - Authored by: Svartalf on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 11:08 AM EST
- SCO Says Court Agrees to Keep the Code Secret - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 12:46 PM EST
- I'm so sorry but I cannot comply. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 01:10 PM EST
- SCO Says Court Agrees to Keep the Code Secret - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 01:29 PM EST
- As I Predicted - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 02:08 PM EST
- SCO Says Court Agrees to Keep the Code Secret - Authored by: rbelk on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 03:24 PM EST
- SCO Says Court Agrees to Keep the Code Secret - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:53 PM EST
- SCO Says Court Agrees to Keep the Code Secret - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 09:26 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:02 AM EST |
Surely there has to be a court document for this, if it is true. Can the people
who monitor the Pacer PDF image site keep an extra vigilant eye out in the next
day or two.
I'm still waiting for the documents to show up concerning the new copyright
claims SCO is alleged to have filed late Friday... Are both more legal
vapourware from SCO? We haven't had a big wriggle from them recently, and the
fist of IBM is tightening...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:12 AM EST |
Sco is right! the court is the only one who need to be inform about the content
of litigation![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AlleyOooop on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:14 AM EST |
This is pretty well in line with SCO's own ongoing perception of reality and
FUD. Not totally unlike thier statement regarding the hearing, saying it was
more like a "coin" toss to see who would have to produce discovery
first? There certainly was nothing in the transcriptions from the court that
indicated this was the "fact", and I can't recall it being brought
up other than the confidentiality agreements being in place.
---
People are alright individually, but in groups they tend to
-- choose sides and wear armbands." - George Carlin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:15 AM EST |
I liked the last sentence...
"SCO characterises the licenses as a source of "immunity" from
future intellectual property claims."
Some would say "immunity", others (e.g. mafioso) might say
"protection".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pixitha on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:20 AM EST |
now couldn't someone just come out of the courtroom (from ibm say) and say hey,
everyone the code is line ### through ### within xxxx.file? they arn't
releasing the actual code, and if its already out there anyhow (not that im
saying sco is right or anything), but couldnt someone do something like that?
-pix[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:28 AM EST |
Can't Eric Raymond's wonderful comparator be used? It compares encrypted
snippets of code in two source file collections:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/comparator/
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/09/2129207&mode=thread&tid=126&
amp;tid=156&tid=187&tid=88
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1258642,00.asp
Never been done in court I suppose.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:30 AM EST |
| Thanks PJ - but I have a question:
While the protective order would prohibit
the code from being released to the public, theoretically it already has been
released via Linux. So, I am trying to figure out if the protective order would
keep IBM from releasing a "statement" (for lack of a better word) that specifies
which LINES of code in a certain version/kernel were at issue without
actually listing the code itself.
This could even be in the form of court
documents - i.e., refering to the contested code by line-address in the kernel
or even refer to a general function or sub-program within the main
code......would this still violate the protective order if no actual code is
released?
In other words - I am looking for a loophole.
My gut tells me it
isn't there, but I am hoping otherwise.
Mike A. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:32 AM EST |
Can an "amicus curiae" (?) brief be filed now? Explaining how
stupid it is to keep the code secret - if SCO is correct in their
allegations, the code is already released.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PeteS on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:37 AM EST |
| When SCO says this sort of thing, I am always suspicious.
I think Messrs.
Stowell et. al. are referring to the existing protective order, for otherwise
one would reasonably have expected to see a motion on the subject; after all,
any additions to the existing order would need a hearing, which would take at
least a few days to even schedule.
As to keeping the code secret, that
depends where the code is from.
McBride admitted in open court that 'SVRx
has no trade secrets' and copyright protections do not require keeping it secret
to maintain protections. So if this is from SVRx, they'll have a hard job to
keep it secret.
If it's from somewhere else, a different problem crops up,
from the SCO point of view.
They want (obviously) to make people pay for
licenses; if they show the code (I doubt they actually have any, but let's say
they do), then it'll be out of the distros before Darl and Co can place a put
order, thus destroying their only possible revenue stream. But I do not think
the court will look kindly upon SCO not giving infringers the ability to remove
infringements, and I am sure the IBM attorneys are up to the task of explaining
that to the court.
Why did I say 'only possible revenue stream' when they
have UnixWare and SCOServer(old, but still used) ?
See This Review of UnixWare
7.1.3 by Tony Bourke at OSNews
This part of the conclusion (you should
read the entire article though) is interesting
All in all, it's
hard to find a compelling value proposition in UnixWare, even without taking
into account the animosity that SCO has generated. When you do consider the SCO
issue, (as it is impossible to ignore) the UnixWare story is even less
compelling. I can't consider it a leading operating system, in terms of either
technology or functionality, and I couldn't imagine any situation where I'd
recommend it as a solution
Note that OS News is a mainstream
organization read worldwide, and has more impact on buying decisions than the
CNNs of the world.
I wonder how long it will take Darl and Co to issue a
statement challenging the review (which is quite objective)?
The bottom line
is that the non-Linux products of SCO have atrophied and have no real compelling
value for new installs compared to the competition. We knew that, of course, but
it's nice to see a reviewer come out and say it.
So their only apparently
viable business model is licensing on code they won't show, because if they show
it, it'll be cleaned out; yet it they don't show it, it's perfectly possible the
court will not allow SCO to impose license fees (because the users have no
opportunity to remove the offending code).
I see a noose
tightening...
---
Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural
stupidity [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: N. on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:38 AM EST |
Am I missing something here? Can somebody correct the following thoughts for
me:?
* SCO specifies the code to IBM
* IBM looks at the changelogs to figure out who contributed that code
* If IBM doesn't have enough info to verify that the code in question was
validly contributed, they could subpeana the contributor or the maintainer for
more information.
Would the person giving the evidence be controlled by the protective order? If
so, then what's the problem?
---
N.
(Recent convert to Linux)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:38 AM EST |
I hate to say something supportive of SCO (just the name sounds like a skin
disease doen't it?) but they may have a point about keeping their code secret.
If they want to say "Here's our file, and this bit is copied into the
Linux kernal in that file at such-and-such a line", there is no reason
they need to reveal their file. The OSS community can check the origin of the
Linux kernel lines pointed to without seeing the SCO file.
Re: the comment about protection being unnecessary from a copyright point of
view.
Although copyright would clearly remain unchanged, wouldn't revelation of their
code affect the status of their trade secrets? (IANAL)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:38 AM EST |
Are they talking about the code in System V or in Linux?
If it's the System V code, I don't think anyone's been asking to see that.
If it's the Linux code, well, it's already public. I notice that BS has been
characteristicly vague here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RSC on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:41 AM EST |
What am I missing?
I thought the "protection order" stated this anyway.
I am a legal dullard so I must be missing something.
can anyone tell me why we should be suprised at this and why it should worry
us?
Sorry I always thought it would be a court ruling that made the code public
anyway, I mean is it nit true that if there is an IP infringment that at some
time the court would order any infringing code br removed from Linux, and the
only way that is going to happen if is some of the OSS comunity would need to
see the code to remove it.
RSC.
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: amcguinn on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:42 AM EST |
| I'm confused. The code SCO is ordered to show next month is as a result of the
"Order to Compel Discovery". I thought "Discovery" meant documents going
directly from one party to the other, not going to the court. Is it different
because in this instance the court had to order SCO to produce the
documents?
If this is just discovery -- SCO providing documents to IBM --
then it's covered by the protective order agreed by SCO and IBM a good while
ago, and we always knew we wouldn't see it at this stage. If so, this is not
news at all. After all, we only know what documents have even been asked for
because the parties have gone to court complaining either that the requests are
invalid or that the documents haven't been produced. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jog on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:43 AM EST |
This interchange does not need "closed session".
The court need only ask: "Mr Marriott, is this information
adaquate disclosure for your discovery?"
No matter what the answer, the details need not be of record. They may remain
guarded by the protective order.
jog
IANAL [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 06:12 AM EST |
:start
IBM "what now!"
SCO "line " x " is infringing our Intellectual
Property"
IBM "sorry, that line isnt your code anyway"
SCO "yes it is"
IBM "no it isnt"
SCO "prove it"
IBM "lets ask the Open Source Developers"
SCO "why?"
IBM "they will know whose code it is for sure"
SCO "No, they cant see it - it is ours"
x = x + 1
GOTO start[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 06:18 AM EST |
SCO is very good at misleading people with statements that are vague, incomplete
and misleading. The rest of the world then reads things into their statements
that were never there to begin with, and jumps to the conclusions that SCO
desires. It's a very clever form of lying.
In this case, SCO may simply be referring to the protective order that's
already in place.
Also, I don't think we give a $SOUTH_END_OF_NORTHBOUND_RAT about SCO's code,
we just want to know what Linux code is deemed to infringe so it can be fixed
(if needed). Stowell did NOT say that this information would be kept secret,
but he's managed to get the world thinking it would be.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 06:22 AM EST |
Where is the motion?
Where is the filing granting the
motion?
All we have seen on the docket so far, is that items *CAN* (not
must) be keep secret, if designated to be secrets by the party to be submitting
them -- but the other side can contest the secret designation, and the burden of
proof that secrecy is necessary is on the party asking for secrecy.
In
other words, there is no general ruling on record, that says the code must be
keep secret.
Let's remember that SCO's description of the court hearing
and court case have not always been entirely accurate.
For example: http://www.inter
netnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3285521
In this article, Blake
Stowell said SCO had two motions to compel discovery (I realize the first
sentence is not especially clear, but given that SCO were asking for Dynix, the
only plausible interpretation of what Stowell was saying, is that SCO had two
motions to compel discovery, and that the one related to Dynix was rendered sort
of moot. Plainly that isn't an accurate descripton. Here is the
quote:
According to SCO spokesman Blake Stowell, IBM late
Thursday passed along the Sequent source code it was requesting in one of its
two motions to compel discovery. The judge postponed the other SCO motion
against IBM to Jan. 23.
"(IBM's source code) was not something that we
had to ask for at the hearing, but something that we got by virtue of the fact
they kind of did it at the 11th hour," Stowell said.
In the
same article, Stowell also claims that SCO had already identified the code to
IBM completely
But SCO's Stowell said the company has
already identified by name several areas where the lifted code can be found --in
the Journal File System, Read/Copy/Update (RCU) and non-uniform memory access
(NUMA), for example.
"I think that identifying it by name, it would be
extremely easy for IBM to determine where those lines of code have gone into
Linux," he said.
"We can't even be more specific than that. It's
pretty obvious that they are very familiar with these contributions and it's not
a mystery to them at all."
Also for example, let's see how
Darl McBride described the events on 5 Dec, in an interview on Bloomberg
TV
Um, the night before the trial, before the hearing, I
should
say, IBM showed up and gave us a substantial amount of what
we were
asking for. The judge then said okay IBM, you got
what you, uh, you delivered
that and now SCO its your turn
to step up and so that's what we're going to do.
The point
here over the next coming weeks, Suzy, is that you are going
to see
SCO step up with a substantial amount of infringment
related to Linux, and then
we'll go from there.
Now, we've seen the transcripts, and the
order ... and this doesn't seem like an accurate description to
me.
In summary, McBride and Stowell have both described the court
hearing on Dec 5, in ways that very clearly do NOT seem to match the public
records.
So, I suspect, Stowell's mouth has simply ran away with itself
again.
Right now, to me, that seems a lot more likely that the court
has decided anything new. Especially since there is no record of anything new
having been filed, any new motions, any granting of new motions,
etc.
Put simply - take Stowell's comments on the court process with a
large dumpster full of salt
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TItan on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 06:28 AM EST |
I have a feeling IBM is going to challenge SCO everywhere it can with
regards to this aspect of the protective order.
8. Challenging a Designation: At any time, a party to this Order may
challenge the designation of information as CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION by notifying the DISCLOSING PARTY in writing of the
information that the challenging party in good faith believes should not
have been given a designation of CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. The
parties shall then confer within five (5) business days to try to resolve the
matter, and if unable to resolve the matter, may thereafter seek the
Court's assistance. The burden of proof shall be on the DISCLOSING
PARTY to show that the designation is appropriate under this Order. Until
the matter is resolved by the parties or the Court, the information in
question shall continue to be treated according to its designation under
the terms of this Order. By failing to object to the designation of
information upon its production, a party does not waive its right to
object at a future time to that designation.
SCO is going to have prove the code they present is inline with the
definition of "Confidential Information", as defined in the order.
C. The term "CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION" is defined herein as
information or DOCUMENTS or other materials that the DISCLOSING
PARTY in good faith believes ***is not publicly known*** that would
be valuable to third parties, including but not limited to the DISCLOSING
PARTY'S actual and potential competitors, and that the DISCLOSING
PARTY would not normally reveal, and has not revealed, to third parties
without an agreement to maintain it in confidence.
Which might be tricky once they answer IBM's INTERROGATORY 11...
INTERROGATORY No.11
Please identify all products ever marketed, sold or distributed by plaintiff
or plaintiff’s predecessors in interest, including but not limited to the
terms on which each was marketed, sold or distributed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 06:34 AM EST |
to see what can trigger us to get upset
they know we want to see the code and we know they twist words
yes there is a protective order in place but does it specifically state that
linux code is to be kept confidential?
we dont know as of yet
be patient and dont let them provoke
also have you noticed it is like they are trying to force kernel contributors to
think they have to file a suit?
try looking at it from that perspective to see what advantage they would get in
court if the linux coders did that?
one advantage i see is that they would have the coders and could maybe do this
challenging to the GPL they want to do?
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DrStupid on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 06:48 AM EST |
Having read the article, I don't see anything to indicate (absent of further
evidence like a court docket) that BS is referring to anything other than the
protective order.
Let's be clear about this. There is no way the court will make a declaration
that *any* evidence TSG provides will be treated as confidential, regardless of
its origins. That would be a nonsensical situation. What the court has already
put in place (the protective order) is that TSG can submit evidence marked
CONFIDENTIAL and such evidence is to be treated as confidential until that
status is contested. Contesting the status is done on a piece by piece basis.
So imagine a situation where TSG have produced a file from UnixWare and a file
from Linux as evidence, both marked CONFIDENTIAL. I would expect that the
confidential status of the UnixWare file (assuming it wasn't an old SysV file)
would be upheld, but IBM would have strong grounds for challenging the attempt
to mark the Linux file confidential. For TSG to argue that the Linux file must
be confidential because it contains their trade secrets is, amongst other
things, begging the question since that is the matter before the court.
Also note that the protective order cannot stop IBM submitting a patch to the
kernel to remove code, provided their description of the patch does not reveal
the confidential material. If IBM submit a patch saying "tidy up
code", and TSG yell "hey, that's removing our code!!", then
it is TSG who have divulged the confidential info.
In addition, IBM cannot be stopped from revealing their *own* confidential
material (e.g. dynix or aix code) see
"14. Disclosure of a Party's Own Information" Again, for TSG to
assert that IBM cannot reveal dynix code would be to beg the question, and force
a summary judgement on the nature of the SysV contracts.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 07:00 AM EST |
WOW, who saw this coming?
yesterday the stock price went down and today they have a press release.
i'll wait till i hear it from another source.
no pun intended.
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 07:05 AM EST |
As I understand this, the steps are:
1) SCO submits their discovery and marks it confidential
2) IBM challenges confidentiality
3) SCO tries to justify need for confidentiality
4) Court rules on issue
We haven't gotten to Step (1) yet, so B.S. is just spouting B.S.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 07:06 AM EST |
This is such a disgusting spin on the truth. Lets count the
false implications:
1) they imply we want to steal their code
2) they imply their code is *actually valuable*
3) they imply they don't need to provide evidence to the
people who they are attempting to extort licence fees from
4) they imply that the will be anly less screwed because they only have to schow
their evidence to the court...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: error27 on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 07:08 AM EST |
Wouldn't RedHat just ask for the code in the ordinary course of their lawsuit
against SCO?
SCO is trying to create hype about their vapourware Linux code. At some point
people just stop caring about the code. I've pretty much reached that point.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Downing on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 07:39 AM EST |
After reading the protective order, it seems to me that SCO might very well
be able to keep the Unix code under wraps.
BUT...The IBM
interogotories include requests that SCO identify with specificity the files and
lines of Linux that contain infringing information.
The protective
order allows the disclosing party to mark productions as confidential only if
(inter alia) the disclosing party believes in good faith that the production is
not already public knowledge. Now SCO might claim that in good faith they
believe the allegedly infringing Linux code is not public knowlegde, but I don't
think the judge would go along with that! ---
Thomas Downing
Principal Member Technical Staff
IPC Information Systems, Inc. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 07:43 AM EST |
While it wouldn't necessarily surprise me if Blake Stowell
were lying through his teeth, it is possible that
there is truth to what he says. To the extent that
there is secrecy concerning code relevant
only to the contract dispute with IBM, that secrecy might
not hurt open source developers who are not party
to the contract.
I would think that any damages SCO could get from its
contract dispute would be limited to any recovery
it might get from IBM itself, if any. The amount SCO is
seeking from IBM makes it abundantly clear that SCO is
attempting to collect consequential damages resulting from
IBM's public distribution of the disputed code, not just
from IBM's own internal use of the code. If SCO wins,
they cannot recover the same damages from other parties a
second time. On the other hand, if SCO loses, I think
they would be precluded from seeking damages for use of
the disputed code on the basis of issue preclusion.
So I don't think that there is any real reason to be
worried about code being secret in the SCO v. IBM
case, UNLESS copyright issues are added to the case. In
that case, a protective order in the IBM case of the type
asserted to exist by BS would be a really good reason
for the Delaware court in the Red Hat case to allow
**that** case to proceed.
Moreover, if I were arguing against such a protective
order, or arguing in the Red Hat case for Red Hat, I would
argue that failure to disclose which code in Linux
allegedly infringes an SCO copyright is void against both
public policy and the first amendment protection of free
speech.
The first prong of the argument is that our society
encourages competition and requires mitigation of damages,
and the failure of SCO to disclose which portions of Linux
allegedly infringe SCO's copyright does not permit either
to take place with respect to Linux vendors, service
providers, or users.
The second prong of the argument is that computer code is
speech. It would be contrary to the first amendment
protection of free speech for a court to allow SCO to
encumber the entire Linux kernel (or any Linux
distribution), including non-infringing portions, on the
basis that only a portion infringes an SCO copyright.
More specifically, actions taken by a court should be
required to be narrowly drawn to allow as much otherwise
unencumbered free speech as possible in view of any
copyright that SCO might assert. Allowing SCO to hold its
copyright in secret yet still enforce it against anyone
engaging in substantially non-infringing activities would
chill not only the expression of free speech in this
instance, but also in other instances not related to
computer code, where the copyright at issue concerns
unpublished subject matter.
For example, anyone who
alleges that a portion of his unpublished, but copyright
work was copied into a substantial matter of public
discourse could chill legitimate quotation and discussion
about that matter from by keeping secret information
regarding which portion of the matter of public discourse
has allegedly been copied.
I don't think the courts would allow that to happen, and I
think both IBM's and Red Hat's lawyers would be too smart
to let it happen.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gleef on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 07:51 AM EST |
When I heard there were trade secret allegations, and a Protective Order on
appropriately labeled discovery, I assumed that we would never see any System V,
UnixWare, AIX or Dynix code in question from this trial. I just hope that the
court realizes that 32V, Linux and *BSD code does not warrant such protection;
that discovery, evidence, motions and court discussion of such publicly released
code should not be closed, sealed or otherwise suppressed, even the bits where
SCO might claim "Trade Secret" status.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 07:55 AM EST |
I took a quick look at www.sco.com to see if perhaps they had put up a press
release regarding this. Not surprisingly, there was nothing there about it.
However, there were some things I hadn't seen or noticed before that I thought
might be of interest.
-
SCO claims now that part of the
offending code is code from the AT&T/USL settlement. Looks like they're now
claiming ownership of that code as well.
Code that has been
identified includes Unix System V code as well as copyrighted code included in
the 1994 settlement between Unix Systems Laboratories, Inc. and Berkeley
Software Design, Inc. SCO acquired this code and associated copyrights in 1995
from Novell.
-
This quote also mentions that offending
code came from System V. Didn't KMcB claim in court that it came from UnixWare,
and that System V had no trade secrets? Does this document a concrete example of
false advertising on SCO's part?
-
The links from their site to the
Linux Kernel Personality module information now simply link back to their home
page. Are they in fact now trying to downplay their LKP, perhaps since
speculation has run rampant that it might contain Linux kernel
code?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nivuahc on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 08:25 AM EST |
| I fully expect the code to be available (assuming that there is any)
shortly after SCO shows it in court.
And I fully expect it to be SCO who
makes it available, albeit anonymously.
And I fully expect them to point
their finger at the OSS community and claim that we somehow 'stole' it or that
IBM 'leaked' it so they can paint this nice little picture of themselves as the
'poor little software company that's being harassed and threatened by IBM and
the OSS community'.
---
Yeah, I finally created an account. You might
recognise me from my old nickname though: 'Anonymous'. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 08:46 AM EST |
I think this is part of SCO's bluff. If they did have code to show, they would
start showing it already, since they have nothing to lose now.
By claiming they can't do so because it is secret, then they buy themselves a
few more days. The game is up, but SCO just won't admit it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 08:59 AM EST |
Wasn't the basis for delay in the SCO VS Redhat case that they would be forced
to do the work twice, and that the Redhat case should wait on discovery to be
completed with IBM. Well now if Blake is correct the critical portions are
forced to be closed, then their arguments pretty much fall apart.
<BR><BR>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 09:41 AM EST |
I think that the Court's decision on this matter is
quite
plausible. Even though my personal belief is that
SCO's case
is full of rotted prunes, that's my
bias. They are entitled to
"the benefit of the doubt." Given that they claim
not
only copyright status (which doesn't require secrecy)
but trade-secret
status to this material (which does),
they are quite entitled to have
the material treated
accordingly, at least for now.
Obviously, this should not be applied in such a way as to
prevent
access by expert witnesses who (with the approval
of the Court and
perhaps with a gag-order) should be able
to help evaluate the validity
of the claim. It also
should not
prevent expediencies like putting
the material onto a
court-sealed CD-ROM, bringing CDs of public Linux
material
into the same chambers, and conducting a "diff" search.
Nor do I worry, particularly, that anything less
than this
will in fact occur. The Court shows itself to be very
technologically savvy, fair, and efficient. After all,
this
is a case whose merits
can be very quickly resolved using
computer technology (as
well as a cadre of qualified experts, some of
whom may
wear tennis shoes), once the code is disclosed .. secretly
.. to the appropriate parties. The Court can establish a
"bright
line rule" and basically measure against
it before finally ruling on
the case. (And I think it
will be very enlightening what that
bright-line
turns out
to be, and how it is ultimately treated by the
Court.) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 10:03 AM EST |
So it'll remain "secret" unless someone contests it.
Ok, so let's contest it. If there's something that we can do, please tell us
how to do it and then let's do it.
One of my pet peeves is when I'm told something can be done but not how to go
about it.
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 10:38 AM EST |
IANAL, but
Part of what IBM is getting at is the FUD itself. SCO is showing people (mostly
under NDAs) bits of code and making very bold claims in public which are
damaging to IBM's (and OpenSource in general) business. Same with SEC
disclosures and such.
What if what SCO shows is almost trivial, but just enough to not get the case
dismissed immediately? The damage to IBM would continue. I would think it
strange if SCO was allowed to keep the cloud of FUD going.
I can see SCO asking the judge to close the hearing initially because no one
knows what they will reveal until they reveal it and IBM seeking to make the
informtion public after whatever is revealed. Or they may present something
that is NOT in the linux source tree, but which they claim Dynix or AIX
infringes or some other fancy footwork, or a mix of linux and closed source.
Even if it is a trade secret, and in Linux, it already has been published.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 10:41 AM EST |
There are others with an interest in LINUX.
Various other copyright holders and developers for LINUX have an interest in
knowing what, if any, code infringes. NOT just IBM or Red Hat!
Certainly if every "interested" party could be looked at as parties
to any copyright disagreements!
If these parties can not be brought in under the Red Hat or IBM cases... then,
can they file a joint class action themselves and get a protective order
(without needing an NDA) and get to see the code that SCO produces?
AND, after a challenge to SCO's actual rights to any contested code then the
obvious remedy, if the court is looking for justice, of course, is to rewrite
any infringing code (if any)![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 10:45 AM EST |
I hope I'm not redundant; this post could have crossed other similar points in
the mail. And no, IANAL.
If SCO cannot maintain the secrecy of its code base through the ongoing
procedings, they expose it to analysis by a myriad of probing eyes (and versions
of diff). In particular, this will likely surface many occurrances of code with
origins provably tracable to its GPL'd origins. At this point, SCO will be in
deep yogurt, and will be faced with the dilemma: Remove the offending code or
publish under the terms of the GPL. This was nicely summarized by PJ on Sunday,
12/14/03,
At a more fundamental level, I am having a great deal of difficulty with the
intersection of copyright and secrecy. It seems to be in the spirit of the
constitutional basis for copyrights that this property right is given in
exchange for the benefit to the public of the "writings"
availability. It would then follow that such writings would be protected as
secrets until they were exploited, but at that time (the moment of publication)
the protections of copyright would replace the protections of secrecy.
So the heart of this whole body of public discussion (not the case at law, a
contract dispute) is that SCO can CLAIM that there are millions of lines of code
in Linux that infringe their copyright. But then they can hide evidence of such
claims behind a de facto claim of trade secret protection. The question of
equity then is: can you have it both ways, have your cake and eat it, (other
cliches to follow.)
Boy, if that line of reasoning is followed, wouldn't it upset a whole lot of
applecarts?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 11:01 AM EST |
As usual, IANAL:
It's fairly much agreed upon that the comments made by BS are about the current
protective order, but the idea that Linux code can be kept secret by this is
absurd. It's been posted in nested discussions, but not in the main thread, or
if it has, its been ignored:
The protective order only applies to materials or documents *not already
available to the public*. SCO cannot, in good faith, argue that the Linux
source trees are not publicly known. Yes they can keep their UnixWare, or
perhaps SVRx files under the protective order, but they will be unable to do so
with the Linux files based on the wording of protective order.
I highly doubt that SCO can argue that identification of Linux files and lines
numbers can consititue materials or documents in and of themselves which can
fall under the protective order.
On one hand BS was telling the truth. SVRx code or UnixWare code will be kept
confidential, ie "their code". The implied notion that the identity
of the Linux code can be kept secret is false under the current protective
order.
It should be possible for IBM to state "File xxxx.c from version 2.4.18,
lines XX-XXXX are in question". But they couldn't add any information
regarding where SCO said the code originated in SVRx or UnixWare. It's another
half truth from BS in a running series.
-Tomcat[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 11:22 AM EST |
I am guessing that SCO wants a closed court, not to hide
the code, but to introduce the real attack. SCO has been
claiming that this code was copyrighted. If so, and it is
in Linux, then it is out in the open. So a closed court
will hurt nothing on the code issue. OTH, if SCO/Boies is
up to something else, then they will want to keep it quiet
and they will not want the OSS world attacking their new
tactic as well. So far, SCO is absolutly zero for 100s in
all of their attacks. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eric76 on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 11:27 AM EST |
If only the court, IBM, and the jury gets to see the code, wouldn't this make
very large portions of the trial secret?
Surely it wouldn't be enough for IBM to just challenge sample pieces of the
allegedly infringing code. Wouldn't they have to challenge every piece of
code?
I would expect that IBM would challenge every piece of code SCO claimed to be
secret in the trial with a number of experts on the origins of various parts of
the code. If that testimony were made in public, then everyone would see
precisely what SCO does not want public.
If they have to clear the courtroom during that testimony, there is going to be
large periods of time when the courtroom has been cleared of all observers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 11:34 AM EST |
This seems to me to present an odd set of choices. Presumably SCO is limited to
demonstrations of IBM's (and Sequent's)wrong-doing. That is, alleged wrongful
contributions by others are not relevant to the case. The nature of this wrong
doing can be either the inclusion of portions of System V code into Linux by IBM
or the claim that all of IBM's own work in AIX is really part of System V and
similarly restricted. In the case that the code is System V code, it is already
on public view and the circumstances of its incorporation into Linus should be
known. How then can it be a SCO secret? In the case of AIX code, SCO has
acknowledged IBM's ownership, so it is difficult to understand how they could
claim that it is SCO's to restrict. IBM can make any part of the code they
created available to the court on IBM's terms. It seems to me that this whole
thing turns on whether or not IBM secured the right to its own work when they
made their original contract with AT&T. If so, this case is a farce. If
not, not only IBM would be infringing, but potentially every company who made
similar arrangments with AT&T and who have contributed anything to the UNIX
or Linux development streams over time.
There are a lot of them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 11:46 AM EST |
IANAL, but as far as I can see, this is BS [not Blake].
I think a more accurate statement would be:
"The court has agreed that confidential information will be kept secret,
however it is up to the relevant party to prove that documents ARE confidential,
as defined by the protective order."
Under the protective order ["8. Challenging a Designation"], IBM has
the right to dispute the classification of this information as
'confidential'.
SCO would then have to either:
- convince IBM that it is confidential within 5 days.
- prove to the judge that this information "would be valuable to third
parties" [1.C]
I cannot see SCO having a snowball's chance in hell of proving that. What are
they going to argue?
"it's valuable since we can prevent mitigation of copyright infringement
by keeping it secret"
"it's valuable because our extortion racket is based on no-one being able
to prove that we have no case"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 11:54 AM EST |
If the code is "in Linux" then it is already in the public and there
would be no harm (other than the possibility of SCO being ridiculed or the code
being removed) in publishing it again.
I'd even be happy with something like: the function such-and-such in file
so-and-so is a direct copy of code from UnixWare/SYSV/whatever.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 11:57 AM EST |
What is the basis for asking for secrecy? Trade Secrets?
Didn't SCO
already state, in their response to IBM's 2nd (I think) demand for disclosure,
that there are no Trade Secrets in SCO's code?
Lastly, what they are
providing is LINUX code, not SCO code. Isn't that already public? All they are
providing that is different is identification of what parts/lines supposedly
come from SCO code.
The sole reason for this demand for secrecy is to
prevent the OS community from immediately re-writing the code in question and
removing their revenue stream out from under them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 12:08 PM EST |
Picture this: SCO shows the judge the secret code, under the protective order.
Then IBM shows the judge a listing from a kernel development site on the open
internet. Or, even better, shows the judge the code from SCO's download server
that's open to the public.
This judge is not stupid. She would see that SCO had made a big stink about a
protective order over something that's in the public domain. Wouldn't that
help IBM in getting sanctions against SCO for bringing a frivolous suit to the
court?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lightsail on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 12:09 PM EST |
Can it be that the actual code that SCOG states as infringing will be protected,
but the reference information, file name snd version, will be available. The
scope of verifying the heritage of the file is larger, but still able to be
done.
How can you claim that the files are secret when you are actively distributing
on a daily basis? SCOG is still distributing the Linux source via FTP. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Captain on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 12:10 PM EST |
Since the court transcripts are public record, it would be pretty easy for IBM
lawyers to go through SCO's evidence of infringing code, line by line, and say
things like: "Your honour, SCO claims ownership of
some_linux_sourcefile.c, line 224 through 245, but we have reason to believe
that this is a simple case of code that had already been placed in the public
domain, before SCO bought the IP rights."
This way, SCO's alleged trade secrets and IP are still protected, and the Linux
crowd can start digging up the real deal about SCO's alleged evidence.
Logically speaking, IBM wouldn't need such a loophole, but IANAL.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 12:13 PM EST |
There is still one point of confusion, even here on Groklaw: do you need a
license to use a piece of software? The answer is NO. Once you have received
software, there are no restrictions on your personal use of that software, nor
on any incidental copying that is required in the normal use of the software,
such as installing on a hard drive, copying to memory, etc. The only reasons you
might need further license is if you A) specifically signed away your right to
use the program via a contract, EULA, etc., or B) wish to distribute all or
parts of the software. You can even modify the software, any software, for your
own personal use, just like you can rip a CD to WAV's on your computer and mix
it with other music to produce sounds that you enjoy. So, there are three
terribly important things to get straight here:
1. EULA's are contracts. The only way in which they can be considered to be
licenses, is where they are (graciously) giving you back rights that they just
took away, or where they are granting you distribution rights (don't hold your
breath).
2. Software is sold to end users, not licensed. You NEED NO LICENSE to _use_
copyrighted material. Obviously, you must have attained it through legal means,
or else you are at the very least breaking some other law. But once I purchase
software I am under no obligation to sign, click, or otherwise agree to a EULA,
because I do not need anything that that EULA "grants" in order to
legally use the purchased software. Do you receive a license with a book? A CD?
Is there mention of or reference to a license? Of course not. You don't need a
license to read a book that you've bought, or to play a CD. Note especially
here that a CD even required copies to be made in the memory of the playing
device. And you still don't need a license.
3. Software is sold to end users, not licensed. Yes, that was the last one too.
Nearly everyone repeats the cliche, that software is always only licensed to
users. This only plays into the hands of corporations that want more rights than
they are entitled to by copyright. Lawyers and politicians know that if you can
control the terminology being used, you can win nearly any debate. We need to
stop allowing corporations to control the terminology. So, repeat after me: I
own my software and do not need a license to use it. I own my software and do
not need a license to use it. I own my software and do not need a license to use
it.
Thank you boys and girls![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 12:20 PM EST |
| I'm seeing a new pattern here: ZDNet is getting exclusive access to Stowell and
coming up with scoops.
Googling for 12/16, 10 of the 10 latest stories
were cNet/ZDNet.
All the stories about not revealing the code in open court
are from cNet/ZDNet.
PRNewswire, their chosen
media outlet up to now, has not one SCOG story since Dec. 10.
---
IANAL,
etc. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 12:59 PM EST |
Copyright isn't the issue - the issue is trade secrets. SCO probably asserts
the following:
SCO's trade secrets are embedded in x number of Linux files.
Exactly what those secrets are is obfuscated by the surrounding Linux code.
SCO has contracts and agreements with other parties compelling it to protect
those trade secrets.
If SCO states which lines of code among the obfuscating Linux code is its trade
secrets, well, then it just revealed its trade secrets and violated its
agreements.
If Linux developers are allowed to remove the code in question from Linux, then
the trade secrets have been revealed by their absence.
So, the argument goes, SCO's only recourse is to prevent anyone from revealing
which code belongs to SCO, and to force Linux to close the source.
Is this a fair summary of SCO's position?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: koa on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 01:02 PM EST |
Does anyone know if there are any independant code audits going on?
Wouldn't it be beneficial for the OSS community to undertake an audit to show
once and for all the origins of all the kernel source?
I keep seeing people saying "...just let us know what code it is, and the
OSS community will have the code replaced in the blink of an eye...". So
why has there not been an incentive to audit the code? (or has there, and I just
havnt heard of it?)
---
...move along...nothing to see here...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Skypro on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 01:02 PM EST |
Ok, This may be a wild shot or even already come together as a comment elsewhere
but the picture as I see it is this:
1. SCO says there is proprietary code in Linux
2. SCO goes after IBM for allegedly releasing proprietary code in Linux
3. SCO paints Linux community as Criminal hackers and IP vandals
4. SCO contests validity of GPL
5. SCO refuses to show code to back up allegations
6. SCO complains of DOS attacks
7. SCO compelled to show code in discovery to IBM
8. Protective Order in place keeping confidential, all “information derived
therefrom, filed with the Court, submitted to the Court in connection with a
hearing or trial, or produced or served either by a party or by a non-party, to
or for any of the other parties” and stipulates that the code can only be used
for “for the purposes of this Action and not for any other purpose or function,
including without limitation any business, patent prosecution, competitive or
governmental purpose or function.”
So what if there is GPL’d code in SCO’s code and SCO is not abiding by the GPL?
It has stuck me as incongruous that Linux and other GPL’d code is open for
inspection by any proprietary interest but closed code does not offer the GPL
and OSS community the same consideration. Indeed I and not an expert on the US
constitution or legal system but I have often wondered how copyright could be
applicable to something you cannot inspect. I am probably way off base here,
but it seems reasonable to me that you should be able to have the choice to
protect your work by access to copyright or my hiding and keeping secret the
workings of the piece, but a system that allows both will sooner or later be
open to abuse.
Maybe I am paranoid but I think that all the above points to a strategy of SCO
to monetize the value inherent in Linux i.e. collect a “tax” in Linux
installations, and in the process not have to be open to the same type of action
that an examination of the SCO code would surely bring if sections were found to
contain code of dubious provenance.
Much has been said about SCO’s antics of this year as an attempt to run up the
stock price, but what if there are other reasons and the increase in stock price
was but a serendipitous windfall?
It would appear that the last things SCO wants to have happen is that a) it does
not want to give the Linux community the opportunity to remove any offending
code and b) it does not want its own code to be subject to inspection to find
any potential copyright violations. If this was at all true it would appear to
me that SCO’s objective is to make money from the work of the Linux community by
collecting a “tax” on Linux and also to make money from the Linux community by
using its work in their own code.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 01:17 PM EST |
We've all pretty much discussed this before in the context of SCO's recent
arguments before the Court, but perhaps it would be worth pointing out that it
also explains some of SCO's older nonsense as well.
SCO's legal
theory is that the original AT&T contract requires IBM to keep secret
anything that they themselves developed in connection with Unix. The immediate
application is, of course, IBM's contribution of NUMA, RCU, JFS, etc.
enhancements to the Linux kernel. The grasping-at-straws extension is that IBM
purportedly learned "methods and concepts for developing Unix software" from
AT&T and that therefore just about any open communication from IBM regarding
software is also a contract violation [1]
Now, there is a bit of a
problem with this theory. (Stop laughing!) Aside from the vanishing
probability of a court actually accepting it, there's also the little matter of
establishing damages. "They did a Bad Thing, so fork over $1,000,000,000
per week" isn't going to work very well without a bit more detail.That's
where some of Darl's mystery blather comes in. We keep laughing at all of the
logorrhea about the history of software and how Linux needs to be "monetized" to
protect the cornucopia of software innovation, but there may well be method to
the madness.
I propose that this is all by way of establishing damages. The
Court is unlikely to award "billions and billions" of damages for IBM publishing
their own work that SCO had never seen, contract or no contract, in the absense
of demonstrated damages to SCO. That's where the "damage to the industry" part
comes in, along with portrayal of SCO as the rightful "root of all operating
systems." After all, Microsoft is founded on operating system sales, and it's
got a market cap of hundreds of billions. SCO has even more right to be up
there, and would be if IBM hadn't cut the bottom out of the Unix OS market by
it's heinous (and contractually-prohibited) contributions to
Linux.
Comments, please.
[1] I'm waiting for SCO to cite Brooks as a
particular instance. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 01:48 PM EST |
New article 'Revenge of the Nerds"
http://www.forbes.com/2003/12/16/cx_dl_1216linux.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: irieiam on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 01:59 PM EST |
...Of course, when this is over the code will easily be "diff'd" to
show the missing parts that were confidential and 'secret' assuming that there
is code to be removed. The thing that gets me is:
If this alledged code is currently in an open source project, how in the world
can it be 'secret'? If I have a 100 line file and someone removes 5 lines but
won't tell me which they removed...
diff oldfile newfile >removedlines
wtf? Seems like SCO's attorney's are doing what they need to do I guess but
it's still trivial...
---
-irieiam
The first requisite of Freedom is choice. The second would have to be
availability of information. Something bless the internet...please.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bobh on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 02:37 PM EST |
This article is ZDNet helping Blake Stowell con the financial analysts into
thinking that SCO just won some kind of court victory. They needed a "win," so
the nice shills folks at ZDNet are giving them one.
The
tipoff is the line about how the judge was originally going to make it public.
We know that is not the case, because unlike the idiot reporter who believes
everything that Blake Stowell says, we looked at the transcript of the hearing.
So we know that the judge asked about a protective order before even hearing
oral arguments, let alone before issuing the ruling.
This is some horsepuckey
that Blake Stowell and the PR crew at SCO made up so that it would sound like
they "won" something. Sort of like the way they described the ruling itself as
the judge "requesting" that they go first. Now they have trounced the evil IBM
once again, getting the judge to reverse herself and make the code secret,
totally against IBM's wishes. O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! The mighty SCO
wins again!
I guess there are people out there who will fall for this, but
think about how cynical and manipulative the people at SCO must be to try this
stunt... and how totally ignorant and lazy the ZDNet reporter must be to carry
their water on it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 02:43 PM EST |
It is frustrating we won't get to see the code, but it doesn't matter in the
long-term. IBM is going to prove to the court that there is no SCO code in
linux, and that will be the end of it.
What SCO is saying is not new, it is just what was in the protective order
signed in September. So why did SCO bring it up? Because the clock is ticking
til it has to turn the code over to IBM, and that is going to be a disaster for
SCO. So it is busy with its FUD campaign to keep its stock price up til then,
because that is the only thing left for it to do. Expect more FUD in the next
few weeks. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: John Goodwin on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 02:48 PM EST |
and now its confidential so you can't distribute it at all,
according to the court, BWAHAHAHA. Are there some limits on what they can close
and what closing means? Presumably the information is not really the code, but
which parts of the code are FUD-claimed by SCO. But watch out for broader
claims.
Honestly, I expected SCO would try this and I expect it will be allowed too,
because it seems to be reasonable to the uninformed layman--or maybe the
sophisticated lawyer and judge as well. The OSS community *wants* to know this,
but not for reasons that relate to the court case, but to SCOs other
market-harming actions--this is the important point. Wanting something badly
doesn't make it so. Nothing in this case will cause this particular anti-FUD
fruit to drop into the laps of the OSS community. Wishing so is not
fundamentally different from wishing SCO would just shut up and go away. We all
do, but that won't get us anything.
The Open Source community (the Free Software community does not have a problem
here, as RMS reminds us) needs to get realistic about the divergence between to
goals (1) winning this case on behalf of IBM; (2) stopping SCO FUD. This case
will take years, years during which a cloud of SCO+backers manufacture will
successfully hang over Linux in the precise place the *OSS* community cares
about, i.e. penetrating the corporate and desktop space with a high-end (i.e.
not hobbyist or freedom-seeking programmer dev workstation) version of
specifically Linux (i.e. not GNU/Hurd/L4 or GNU/Anything else). If you want
that space, you will have to fight for it and fight for it somewhere other than
this case. Winning this case is a best a lost; winning it on the wrong grounds
could make that a rout.
Likewise, the Free Software community needs to understand that GNU is not
complete now we have Linux. We need to finish the other clean room kernels that
were planned. Linux is too big a target and too monolithic to stake the *whole*
Free Software movement on (and frankly no one is). In particular, we need to
get to modular or componentized kernels quickly, like the Flux project at Utah,
so that we can cannibalize drivers from whatever Linux or BSD kernel but
assemble completely new kernels out of stock parts. Some of those should not
look like SystemV in their design. If we diversify, we win. If we standardize,
we lose. It may be worth going after Linux if you can take down a whole
market's worth of competition. Fighting over individual drivers or components,
which are swappable or even generated at run time using reflective coding
techniques (www.tunes.org) are much less cost effective. Linux is above the
public's radar and has PR value; this or that video driver does not. From a
strategic standpoint for Free Software, there needs to be *no there there*.
Modern reality check: If you can't describe it in a 7 second sound bite you
can't sue it.
It is important to understand that Proprietary vs. OSS is an *intrabazaar* war,
taken on by two communities with substantially the same goals [market
domination] and world view [pro-business orientation]. Neither of these are
goals of Free Software _per se_. It is a war over alternative business plans
and models in more or less the same IP and legislative regime, not Capitalism
vs. something else.
The Cathedral has a different approach [formal assignment of copyright to FSF]
to different goals [freedom from unjust and non-productive
"IP"-based restrictions], and is not likely to be (successfully)
attacked in the same fasion. It is also not likely to spontaneously produce
SMP-class servers for sale in the enterprise market or to scratch an itch to
have a "Windows clone" user experience (pretty perverted itch,
that). These are things cost-conscious businesses, not freedom-seeking
programmers, want more than anything else. Free Software programmers might like
them if they are there, but they are not going to create them entreprenurially
in their spare time. Profit-motivated businesses might. So Darl has that
right--this is about the future of Capitalism. IP-franchise Capitalism vs. Free
Market Capitalism.
Given those goals, the OSS community should understand that it has to take
actions on its own behalf to stop SCO's malicious and unsupported claims.
Continued wishful thinking that an IBM victory in 2005 or 2006 will do this job
for them border on the pathetic. The "war" will be long lost, or at
least the tactical defeats internalized, by then, even if the strategy for
winning the case is sound.
If SCO's claims are damaging business, then the businesses need themselves to
sue in a legal context where making the alleged "tainted" lines of
Linux (not AIX, not UnixWare) public will happen. If SCOs business practices
are unfair, they need to be attacked and defeated as such, not by proxy.
SCO's claims damage far more than IBM. They may have signed their death
warrant in the long run, as Keynes would say, but can do a lot of damage still
and are doing so, as far as corporate adoption of Linux. (And if they lose, why
wouldn't MS buy them out just to own the UNIX "IP" and make more
mischief and FUD directly, once they lose their proxy).
We are all tired of FUD and want "put up or shut up", but no one has
yet attacked SCO substantively. Maybe the GPL suit will do this, or RedHat.
The IBM case won't. SCO clearly understands its interests (FUD==high stock
price).
Frankly, one aspect of Darl's FUD *is* true. It *is* cheaper to buy them out
and shut them up--IP terrorism pays, precisely because we allow ourselves to be
beguiled by the expansive IP claims, in congress, in court, and in the
marketplace. (Personally, I think we are terrified of the truth, that if IP
doesn't exist, we have nothing left to sell. Americans will accept a lot of IP
delusion and FUD rather than face up to that reality).
Darl has touched a nerve. We need to ask why. My answer is that (1) the
notions of IP and OSS on the one hand vs. Free Software on the other are
intellectually incoherent and create an opening for FUD, because they hybridize
proprietary business values with Free Software to create a weak-immune,
IP-vulnerable version of Free Software; (2) once we [geeks, intellectuals, and
the rest of the "educated classes", including businessmen and
law-folk, in theory all voters] lose the rather tenuous and indirect control of
legislation and the court system we had in 1776, all manner of bad things can
happen and are in the Government-granted monopolies and franchises area of
society; (3) we are kidding ourselves that Software IP is as valuable as Tulip
bulbs--we would be better off using Leaves for currency, like in the
_Hitchhiker's Guide_; (4) from a freedom standpoint, we are tactically remiss
for putting too many eggs in the GNU/Linux basket.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: anwaya on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 02:56 PM EST |
| Everything in the history of SCO's Linux distributions is out of the
bag:
The term "CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION" is defined herein as
information or DOCUMENTS or other materials that the DISCLOSING PARTY in good
faith believes is not publicly known that would be valuable to third
parties, including but not limited to the DISCLOSING PARTY'S actual and
potential competitors, and that the DISCLOSING PARTY would not normally reveal,
and has not revealed, to third parties without an agreement to maintain
it in confidence.
Emphasis added, of course.
No worries here. SCO
Goose for Christmas. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 03:15 PM EST |
Take a deep breath folks,
This is the Judge retaining control of her courtroom. SCO must be free to press
its claims and IBM free to address unfair and incorrect slanders to its name.
Further, there are all sorts of open source elements that will push for
disclosure of everything that affects Linux.
But the judge simply cannot contol confidential material if it is not secret to
begin with. SCO is given the benefit of talking about its 'secrets' under
protection. IBM has very creditable reasons to limit this secrecy both from the
nature of the SCO's own diatribe and from the character of its defense. The
judge has been quite reasonable and IBM & Co. will be persuasive and
reasonable about publication wherever it helps their case, and to a lesser
extent helps Linux.
This is the beginning.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DH on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 03:39 PM EST |
| This may be a trick Ryan E. Tibbitts learned from Microsoft. He litigated for
Caldera versus Microsoft and is now hired by SCOX (did he recieve his 400 000
shares?).
He wrote about it in an
October 00 Bar Journal Article
In his words:
"8. Never Agree
to an Overly Complicated Protective Order. Early in the case, the court
ordered Microsoft to produce the documents (...). A protective order was
necessary, due to the sensitive nature of some of the documents and information
involved." This appears to be resonable, like it is resonable for SCOX not
to show the System VR4 code public. "Microsoft proposed a complicated
protective order. Because we were anxious to obtain the documents and begin our
discovery, we agreed to Microsoft's proposed protective order rather than argue
for weeks over its terms." Doesn't that ring some bells? SCOX delayed
discovery, produced documents as late as possible and now, only a few days after
the court order to deliver evidence produces a protective order. How long took
it to draft it? Was it prefabricated?
"That protective order caused us
headaches throughout the case. Microsoft used the protective order to classify
nearly all of the millions of pages of documents it produced as either
"confidential" or "highly confidential," and each of these classifications
triggered its own set of complicated rules. The protective order also made it
cumbersome for us to deal with the documents, both in filings with the court and
in dealing with witnesses."
Please recall the SCOX NDA an the reasons why
no kernel coder signed it. There will be no expert witnesses for IBM if SCOX
succedes here, or the coders won't be allowed to work at the Linux kernel
afterwards.
IBM should listen to Tibbits advice:
"Although the court
ultimately determined that Microsoft had incorrectly classified many of the
documents as "confidential" or "highly confidential," we should have eliminated
that problem by having the court narrow the protective order at the beginning,
rather than dealing with it throughout the case." So the court should except
the line numbers in the Linux kernel from this order, they are public accessable
anyway.
He also discribed how the protective order affected the media:
"The protective order also created problems for news organizations that desired
access to the Microsoft documents. The news organizations were ultimately forced
to petition the court to unseal documents. For the most part, they were
successful in their attempts to gain access to the documents, but only after
much effort and expense." This raises the question if the media will spend
this effort an expense on the SCO vs IBM case. But even if they do: The delay
will limit public participation in blogs like slashdot and groklaw, thereby
cutting off resources that may be valuable to IBM.
Here is a court document
from Mr. Tibbitts:
http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/M26.pdf (please mirror the site)
On a
side note, we should consider that the very people who ordered Carnopy employees
to demonstrate against demonstrating Linux supporters might fill up the court
room with Carnopy employees when the important code is shown.
Dirk
--
Mr. Tibbitts, your fans from 4 years ago are now your worst enemies.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 03:59 PM EST |
Someone has probably already posted this, but I am in a rush. Just in case....
http://www.forbes.com/2003/12/16/cx_dl_1216linux.html?partner=yahoo&referrer
=
Mentions groklaw/pamela and does NOT put "us" in a good light.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ansak on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 04:12 PM EST |
FreeUser replied to the slashdot item on this issue, tying a bunch of the threads
together in the user comments to this post comes up with the following chain of
reasoning:
- No new motions have been made since SCO's
defeat in the last hearing
- No new hearings have been scheduled or
held
- No new orders have been issued by the court
- The existing
protective order was mutually drafted and agreed upon by IBM, the court, and
SCO.
- It protects trade secrets, but not "code" per se.
- Showing
that any code distributed by SCO as a part of GNU/Linux is not a trade secret is
trivial to do, and we can expect IBM to do so quite quickly
- Non-trade
secrets have no such protection, and will be available in open court
documents
In other words, this is typical SCO FUD and
misrepresentation of the facts...
I don't think I've seen this
chain of reasoning followed through to this conclusion on groklaw. Given TSG's
prior behaviour, is it likely, as this slashdotter concludes, that this story is
no more, nor no less than more price-support FUD?
cheers...ank[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eric76 on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 04:18 PM EST |
Maybe they just mean that the presentation of SCO's own code will be in a
closed courtroom and everyone is jumping to the conclusion that this same
protection is granted to the identification of the allegedly infrining lines in
Linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pfusco on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 04:51 PM EST |
| Not sure if this is the right place for this notice... What I find interesting
is the legal procedings page of the SCO site. It lists all the events against
IBM up till Oct 26th. Its been what 11 days since that prelim loss and they
havent put it up for their customers to see? For thier stockholders to see and
perhaps inquire about? I copied and pasted their announcments below (hope I
dont get sued for using a propriety right click)
On March 6, 2003, The
SCO Group filed a civil lawsuit against IBM citing misappropriation of trade
secrets, tortious interference, unfair competition and breach of contract. In an
effort to keep the media and the public informed of the progress of this
lawsuit, SCO is providing this web site with all of the latest filings and
information from both SCO and IBM regarding this case. All of the legal
documents posted here are public documents that are also on file with the U.S.
District Court in Utah.
Judge assigned to this case: Honorable Dale A.
Kimball
Case Number: 2:03cv0294
March 6, 2003
SCO Files Civil Lawsuit
Against IBM in Utah State Court
March 25, 2003
IBM Files a Notice of Removal
to Have Case Moved From Utah State Court to Federal Court
April 3, 2003
IBM
Files For Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint
April 30, 2003
IBM
Response to The SCO Group complaint
May 2, 2003
SCO Comments on IBM's
Response
May 27, 2003
IBM's Amended Answer to the Complaint
June 16,
2003
SCO's Amended Complaint
August 6, 2003
Defendant IBM's Answer to the
Amended Complaint and Counterclaim-Plaintiff IBM's Counterclaims Against
SCO
September 25, 2003
IBM’s Amended Counter Claims Against SCO
October
24, 2003
SCO’s Answer to IBM’s Amended Counter Claim’s
---
only the
soul matters in the end [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pfusco on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 04:54 PM EST |
| Not sure if this is the right place for this notice... What I find interesting
is the legal procedings page of the SCO site. It lists all the events against
IBM up till Oct 26th. Its been what 11 days since that prelim loss and they
havent put it up for their customers to see? For thier stockholders to see and
perhaps inquire about? I copied and pasted their announcments below (hope I
dont get sued for using a propriety right click)
On March 6, 2003, The
SCO Group filed a civil lawsuit against IBM citing misappropriation of trade
secrets, tortious interference, unfair competition and breach of contract. In an
effort to keep the media and the public informed of the progress of this
lawsuit, SCO is providing this web site with all of the latest filings and
information from both SCO and IBM regarding this case. All of the legal
documents posted here are public documents that are also on file with the U.S.
District Court in Utah.
Judge assigned to this case: Honorable Dale A.
Kimball
Case Number: 2:03cv0294
March 6, 2003
SCO Files Civil Lawsuit
Against IBM in Utah State Court
March 25, 2003
IBM Files a Notice of Removal
to Have Case Moved From Utah State Court to Federal Court
April 3, 2003
IBM
Files For Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint
April 30, 2003
IBM
Response to The SCO Group complaint
May 2, 2003
SCO Comments on IBM's
Response
May 27, 2003
IBM's Amended Answer to the Complaint
June 16,
2003
SCO's Amended Complaint
August 6, 2003
Defendant IBM's Answer to the
Amended Complaint and Counterclaim-Plaintiff IBM's Counterclaims Against
SCO
September 25, 2003
IBM’s Amended Counter Claims Against SCO
October
24, 2003
SCO’s Answer to IBM’s Amended Counter Claim’s
---
only the
soul matters in the end [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mitphd on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:03 PM EST |
Notice the wording of the following passage:
...it's understood
IBM's filing insisted that the code be revealed publicly.
In particular, there is no direct attribution of this
assertion to SCO (or anyone else). If it is false, there is no one to accuse of
lying. Disregarding this statement, the rest of the article is consistent with
the routine protective order that SCO and IBM agreed to at the outset of
discovery. SCO and the reporter have succeeded in transforming a mundane,
boilerplate legal agreement into a major legal victory for SCO, all by a little
non-actionable innuendo.
The really interesting part will come if and when
SCO complies with the court's discovery order. We all expect SCO to mark its
own code "Confidential", which will keep it out of the public eye. What we
don't yet know is whether they will (as ordered) specify the files and line
numbers of Linux code of which they are claiming ownership. Even more
importantly, we don't know if they will mark the lists of those file names and
line numbers as "Confidential".
Unless and until SCO produces the Linux file
names and line numbers, and marks them "Confidential", we won't know what the
court will say about keeping them confidential. If SCO does produce the list
and does mark it "Confidential", I think we can confiently expect a motion for
the court to release the list to the public.
If such a motion is filed, it will
be facinating to see how SCO explains why it must keep its claims secret, while
it pours out threats of copyright litigation.
Only if such a motion were
made and denied would an article like this one from ZDNet be justified. By now
we all know the appropriate discount to be applied to SCO's public statements;
unfortunately, some reporters aren't as well informed as Groklaw readers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 05:11 PM EST |
Everything we have seen regarding the judge's decisions so far has been backed
up with court documents which are publicly available.
As I understand it, nothing is really official until it's part of the court's
transcripts or with a court document.
So where is the court document saying this?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 06:01 PM EST |
Is there a court ruling, agreement, or whatever that states this ?
I don't think Brent Stowell can be taken at his word.
And why Australia ?
Did the think this would spook the OS people there, it seems they've had
difficulties with them, and no one in the USA would hear of it ?
What would the judges in Utah and Delaware think if (when?) they heard this ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 06:11 PM EST |
The funny fact about this whole thing is that SCO will be showing IBM the code
that IBM wrote and has copyright of: JFS, NUMA, RCU (patented too) etc. It is
going to be pure fun for IBM to show years of history of that code with IBM.
Really ironic...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 06:17 PM EST |
| Maybe I'm just tired, and missing something, but wouldn't simply providing a
list of all code that isn't in SCO's claims (and
therefore under GPL and in no way covered by any obscure claim of secrecy) give
us a pretty good idea of what's being claimed? Seems to me that IBM could do
this if they wanted to, and the list of files is already public record, isn't
it? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: zzzcust on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 07:48 PM EST |
So, if we start now, we can render the question moot? Seriously, though, I'm
not sure that rewriting the kernel would prove an insurmountable hurdle to the
OSS community.
---
-Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: zzzcust on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 07:56 PM EST |
So, if we start now, we can render the question moot? Seriously, though, I'm
not sure that rewriting the kernel would prove an insurmountable hurdle to the
OSS community.
---
-Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LionKuntz on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 08:02 PM EST |
I am observing catagory errors
SCOG is an international company with some heritage. It picked up honorable
legacy code rights ignored by others as of no significant value. It poured
millions of dollars into development of new code. It carved a niche for itself
for enterprise-level intel hardware solutions when all the other linux/unix
big-guys were RISC-oriented. It made contributions to Linux which were valued at
the time, and based on opinions of people citing the contributions history, are
valued today.
SCOG has the current unfortunate situation of being headed by a boss easy to
dislike, but that does not affect legal issues. Considerable wastes of time are
devoted to catagory errors defending against threats which do not exist, or are
of insignificance, and not confronting issues of major potentancy.
Litigation is a game played by rules which differ considerably from rules of
software development. If a powerful opponent has caused injury, apparently
deliberately, one does not litigate in a fashion which telegraphs in advance all
future moves. The objective is to wrestle the opponent into court where it is
possible to hit them with surprises. If IBM did even a part of what SCOG claims
IBM did, than SCOG needs to have a swift court-ordered or court-permitted raid
on IBMs records, using subpoenas and discovery, all the time masking what
records are more valuable so those do not end up in the shredder.
So people being sticklers for nuances of words in public statements are burning
bandwidth over some portion of intentional misdirection.
Simplistic reductio ad absurdum serves only to add to the swirls of confusion
eating bandwidth. By this late date it is evident that there are some real
issues between IBM and SCOG, and these issues involve indeterminate portions of
(1) copyright property rights; (2) trade secret; and (3) contractual
confidentiality. These are mingled together in a manner which does not allow
isolation, and are covered by protective orders so that all facts will never be
known. Even after a court decision, not all evidentiary facts will be published
to the public.
The area of most significant intellectual property issues are these:
(1) If IBM received confidential information under contract, and received trade
secrets under contract, and then transferred the "know how" to Linux
under contract to maintain confidentiality, SCOG as been injured.
(2) If copyrighted code has been transferred by IBM to Linux in violation of law
and in violation of contracts, then SCOG has been injured.
If the court finds that SCOG has been injured by the issues noted just above,
depending on the nature of the injury and the viability the available remedies,
not only IBM but also receivers of stolen technology (techniques and know-how)
may be restrained by the court in various fashion. SCOG has hinted that it
expects this outcome from the data in its possession.
SCOG has identified, with some specificity, in court and out of court, portions
of Linux which it claims as its prior invention and released by IBM to Linux.
Those in the development community (practitioners of the art) can identify the
areas described. A considerable bandwidth has been burned arguing elements not
close to those particulars. Sowing confusion is not only eminating from SCOG.
Amending complaints is routine. Filing a new lawsuit on copyright issues uses
excess court bandwidth, so normal procedure is to fold it into an existing
trial. If discovery (the exchange of subpoenaed documents and answers to
interrogatories) produces instances of millions of lines of code, or even
thousands of lines of critical code, copyright claims of specificity will be
added at any time.
Copyright decisions have global reach. All installations worldwide will be
subject to US court decisions regarding critical code under international
copyright law and treaties.
Trade secret and contractual confidentiality decisions have only US relevance,
and will not affect international installations of offending versions as decided
by a US court. US sales of offending versions would be impacted, including
off-shore sales by subsidiaries or branches.
For the single-desktop user, nothing is likely to impact their Linux home
computer. Single-users do not particularly benefit in any way from the SCOG
enterprise-level functions being argued in court. A stripped version of Linux
without the enterprise functionality will not be detectable by the home user.
Enterprise functionality has been a competitive advantage in Linux servers, and
internet functionality would be affected by a court decision finding for SCOG.
It is likely that a court ruling following a favorable decision would require
licences for offending installations. The fact that independent 3rd parties
generated unique code to implement stolen know-how would have to be addressed by
the court, and the court's solution might be to restrict implementation of that
know-how by any 3rd party. The cat is out of the bag. The know-how is out in
public. Rewriting code to avoid specific implementation does not redress the
injury done to the developer of the know-how. Honest men and women do not
receive stolen goods -- even if given a different paint job.
Superior techniques might be spurred, so that the purloined know-how is mooted,
which is what probably would have happened had the illicit transfer never
occurred in the first place. However, we live in this world, not the alternate
universe of "what if no injury was ever proved in court?.
Instead of opting for the lazy choice of assuming SCOG had no case when they
filed a $3,000,000,000.00 lawsuit against a major corporation with huge lawyer
assets, one may choose to look at the case as laid out so far, and keep in mind
that some misdirection, some disinformation is a survival requirement in
prosecuting a case where important supporting evidence is in your opponent's
file cabinets. It is EXACTLY what YOU would do if you were in their shoes (or
else get screwed by the big-guys and learn to love it from your new homeless
camp under the bridge).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I am observing catagory errors - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 08:47 PM EST
- I am observing catagory [sic] errors - Authored by: gvc on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 08:49 PM EST
- I am observing catagory errors - Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 08:51 PM EST
- Oh boy - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 09:20 PM EST
- I am observing catagory errors - Authored by: kickaha on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 10:00 PM EST
- I am observing catagory errors (or maybe not) - Authored by: jdg on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 10:40 PM EST
- I am observing catagory errors - Authored by: Philip Stephens on Tuesday, December 16 2003 @ 11:34 PM EST
- I am observing catagory errors - Authored by: whoever57 on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 12:14 AM EST
- I am observing catagory errors - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 02:36 AM EST
- I am observing catagory errors - Authored by: bobn on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 03:20 AM EST
- A bit of an oddity here... - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 06:55 AM EST
- I am observing catagory errors - Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 03:00 PM EST
- I am observing catagory errors - Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 03:35 PM EST
- I am observing catagory errors - Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 03:56 PM EST
- I am observing catagory errors (+5 funny) - Authored by: John Douglas on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 03:45 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 04:29 AM EST |
It strikes me again and again as I read articles and comments about the SCO
mess, that the 'trade secrets' they are talking about are not their actual
code in Linux (if any), but the identity of that code.
Hmmmm ... My writing it down doesn't make as much sense as I'd hoped.
Maybe if I re-write the title:
SCO Says Court Agrees to Keep Secret which Code is Trade Secret
Uh, that didn't do it either. *sigh*
OK, let's look at SCO's desire to keep some things secret at this court.
Couldn't part of what they are trying to keep secret be not the code, which
they have already distributed and continue to distribute on the FTP site, but
the knowledge of which lines contained in the code are part of their 'trade
secret' code?
Rather far fetched, I know, but identifying to the public which lines of code in
Linux they are claiming to be a part of their trade secrets blows their trade
secrets, while distrubiting the entire work, without pointing to anything in
particular, might not?
(I'm not saying this is actually rational thought, just trying to think like
SCO to discern what they think they are doing ... and it hurts.)
tomas[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 10:42 AM EST |
IAobviouslyNAL, but is there a difference between disclosing SCO's code and
disclossing IBM's code that is supposed to contain the infringement?
SCO: We have this disclosed code and you derived file XXX.c from it.
IBM: Hello everybody, file XXX.c is the one that they are complaining about.
Can't tell you what their original file looks like though!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 12:00 PM EST |
Hi everyone,
I have not read all the comments here, as there are too many. I hope that I am
not duplicating somebody else's suggestions! But I think that it is very
important that all the various organizations and prominent individuals who have
an interest in the Linux operating system, such as OSDL, FSF, Debian, Linus
Torvalds, Richard Stallman etc; as well as commercial organizations such as Red
Hat, Novel, Sun, Oracle, HP etc; should sign a joint petition to the judge in
charge of the SCO vs IBM case, requesting that SCO code disclosures be made
public rather than be kept private. There are several good reasons for this:
(1) The Linux source code is already in the public domain; therefore SCO claims
that such a disclosure could harm their proprietary interests is not valid.
(2) Let us suppose for arguments sake that the SCO claims against Linux were not
true; and that the disputed code was not stolen from SCO by IBM or anybody else,
but were made up of legitimate contributions by Linux contributors. How could
they testify to that fact unless they knew what the disputed code is?
(3) Alternatively, let us suppose that the SCO claims against Linux are true.
How could the offending code be removed unless the maintainers of Linux know
what it is? IBM does not "own" Linux. IBM is neither the
"owner" nor the "maintainer" of Linux. It is merely one
of the many thousands of contributors who have voluntarily contributed code to
Linux. Linus Torvalds was the originator, and still remains the chief maintainer
of Linux. He decides what goes into it and what doesn't. If there is any
offending code in there, he is the one presumably who would be responsible for
removing them, not IBM. Well, he has repeatedly stated, and even written a
letter to SCO to the same effect, that if they would inform him of the offending
code he would remove them. But they have refused to do so.
Linus cannot personally check the integrity of every piece of code that is
submitted to him. He must rely on the integrity of the thousands of contributors
who have contributed the code to Linux. Fortunately so far, that integrity has
never been challenged, except by SCO. Well, if someone wants to challenge the
integrity of a piece of code in Linux, it is up to them to disclose what it is,
so that it can be removed by the official maintainer of the project, who is
Linus not IBM. He and others involved in the development of the project have as
much right to know what the offending code is as anyone else.
If IBM have been guilty of breaking the law, then IBM will have to be punished
for it, not the developers or maintainers of Linux. But IBM has no authority
either to add to, or remove anything from Linux. Only Linux maintainers have
that authority; and they need to know what the disputed code is in order to both
check its origin and identity, as well as to remove it if it is proved to be
unlawful.
(4) This issue is not just a case of SCO vs IBM dispute. Darl McBride has not
just attacked IBM. He has in his latest pronouncements, both challenged the
legitimacy of GPL, as well as attacked the integrity of thousands of Open Source
developers, and especially the contributors of Linux. It is their integrity that
is on the line, not just IBM's. They have every right to know what the
offending code is so that at the very least they can remove them; or if the
challenges are unfounded, as it increasingly appears to be, they can defend
themselves against SCO accusations.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
