|
|
| SCO Sends DMCA Notices |
 |
|
Monday, December 22 2003 @ 08:41 AM EST
|
SCO tells us they have sent out DMCA notication letters but to whom and about what they aren't yet saying. They put out a press release describing the letters they have sent out to certain users of Linux. It's all very vague, as usual. They refer to DMCA Section 1202 which you can read here.
There is no specific identification of what code they are talking about and no indication who got the letter, but here is what we know so far. Their press release, after describing the unpleasant letters they have also sent to licensees (who I'm sure are delighted to be in a business relationship with SCO this morning) says this about the DMCA letters: "DMCA Notification Letter
"SCO has commenced providing notification to selected Fortune 1000 Linux end users outlining additional violations of SCO's copyrights contained in Linux. Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces have been copied verbatim from the UNIX System V code base and contributed to Linux without proper authorization and without copyright attribution. Any part of any Linux file that includes the copyrighted binary interface code must be removed. This ABI code was part of a 1994 settlement agreement involving the University of California at Berkeley and Berkeley Systems Development, Inc., (BSDI).
"The letter states: 'Distribution of the copyrighted ABI code, or binary code compiled using the ABI code, with copyright management information deleted or altered, violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act codified by Congress at 17 U.S.C. Section 1202. DMCA liability extends to those who have reasonable grounds to know that a distribution (or re-distribution as required by the GPL) of the altered code or copyright information will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right under the DMCA.'
"The letter also states, 'In addition, neither SCO nor any predecessor in interest has ever placed an affirmative notice in Linux that the copyrighted code in question could be used or distributed under the GPL. As a result, any distribution of Linux by a software vendor or a re-distribution of Linux by an end user that contains any of the identified UNIX code violates SCO's rights under the DMCA, insofar as the distributor knows of these violations.'" Unless I am missing something, this is another threat, not the real thing. The NY Times reports that the letter includes this: "The letters include an olive branch as well as a threat. 'Once you have reviewed our position,' the Linux letter said, 'we will be happy to further discuss your options and work with you to remedy this problem.'" Nothing the SCO Group does is ever normal in my experience. You send take down notices to ISPs. So what is this exactly? A notice that the recipient might get sued for copyright violations someday? But SCO is not, at this point in time, suing anyone. This couldn't have anything to do with their 4th quarter financial report scheduled for this morning, could it? Maybe they would like a lot of questions about the letter instead?
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 08:53 AM EST |
considering that they are the ones that contributed the abi code to linu xin the
first palce exactly what law is the dMCA warning undder?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:00 AM EST |
SCO is being a Scrooge or are they the Grinch, as WHO else would pull a stunt
like this at this time of year.
Stock market beware of artless tactics by persons who will not wait until the
courts rule as to what is fair.
What is the motive?
The devil is in the details.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: iZm on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:02 AM EST |
Is this saying that any APIs that linux uses that are
emulating the same APIs of Unix are infringing ?, or am I
way off the track here.
Emulation is not illegall is it.
Damn, SCO watching is no good for the blood pressure.
---
Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: theswede on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:03 AM EST |
| insofar as the distributor knows of these violations.
Isn't this the
key? How can anyone know when they won't tell us? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:03 AM EST |
Does anybody know what's up with the RedHat case? It seems to me that this
sort of nonsense should be handled by an injunction. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: theorbtwo on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:11 AM EST |
| There's an article in
the NY Times clearly based on this press release. They qualified some of SCOs
more outragous claims and added a little bit of information from our side, but
it still reads somewhat slanted to me. (The nytimes article is, of course, also
a fair bit shorter then the press release.) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:11 AM EST |
Wow. SCO's combination of vague, creepy, shadowy
threats and utter refusal
to explain them in any
meaningful way sure is tired, but boy is it still
annoying. It's like the empty threats of a spoiled
four-year-old who thinks
they deserve whatever they want
-- you usually have to answer them somehow,
but argument
is
impossible and if it's someone else's kid, you can't
discipline them either.
But certainly "SCO attempts to use DMCA
against Linux
users" is a funny, poisonous, sound bite. This doesn't
make
any sense to me.
Ed
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fjaffe on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:14 AM EST |
Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces have
been copied verbatim from the UNIX System V code base and
contributed to Linux without proper authorization and without
copyright attribution. Any part of any Linux file that includes the
copyrighted binary interface code must be removed. This ABI code was part of
a 1994 settlement agreement involving the University of California at
Berkeley and Berkeley Systems Development, Inc., (BSDI).
Almost too many things in this brief paragraph to consider.
First, "Certain"... which ones? Is it even more than one?Second "copied
verbatim", sounds bad, but not if the code was previously released in a way that
allowed for this copying... Perhaps as a result of the BSD settlement, everyone
believed these files were under the BSD license? Third, "the" System V
codebase... Which version. Is the alledged code even from a version to which SCO
claims rights? Was this a "revision" to which SCO is (alledgedly) the copyright
owner? Fourth, "and contributed"..."without proper authorization"...
Contributed by whom? How do we know they lacked proper authorization? Sounds to
me like SCO is about to claim that their own programmers were acting without
authorization. I'd like to see the audit trail of documentation on that
approach! Fifth, "any part of any Linux file"... why? What do they mean by
"includes the binary interface code"? Don't the linux files include calls
to published API's, said calls potentially being completed by these binary
modules? Even if you bought into the binary code being infringing, why would a
source file include binary code? Is this supposedly statically linnked, or
something? Lastly, "was part of a 1994 settlement agreement"... Is SCO
prepared to show us the agreement, and the specific mention of these binary
codes which provides clear provenance as to SCO's ownership and the proprietary
and protected nature of this source code? Once again, lots of claims, no
meaningful details. Also, none of this appears to have anything to do with IBM,
at first glance. However, IBM, in interrogatories 12 & 13 (IIRC) require SCO
to tell them everything they claim to own in Linux, and the basis for
that ownership. I sure hope these don't get held as confidential under the
protective order. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seeks2know on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:15 AM EST |
Given the double slam the DMCA took last Friday,this seems like poor timing to
me.
Of course, they had to do something to take the focus off their poor earnings
statement. :^)
---
The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the
question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth. - Pierre Abelard[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: plungermonkey on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:16 AM EST |
Sheesh...are these guys getting desperate or what...
---
An ignorant person knows no better, a studid person knows better and still does
what is wrong. Which one are you?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: OmniGeek on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:18 AM EST |
SCO was obviously going to come up with a distraction to misdirect the analysts
from their Titanic situation; in keeping with their past practice, to serve
their ends this must be
1) sensational and extravagant in scope and language,
2) devoid of verifiable specifics, and
3) will never be followed up with specific anything (after all, it's just the
matador's cape, there's nothing solid there.)
Nothing to see here, folks, move along.
Unfortunately, the only way to counter this thing is to effectively point out
that
1) we've seen this routine before, and it was just vaporware every time;
nothing different this time, and
2) SCO is making fools of the analyst press YET AGAIN if they parrot this crap
as before.
Hopefully, the little light bulb will go on for the analyst press this time.
---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:19 AM EST |
Don't forget the 8-k filling:
<a
href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110465903029014/00
01104659-03-029014-index.htm">hre at sec</a>
They report a net loss at 4th quater, and only talk about that microsoft and sun
payed for the SCOsource license.
Btw here is also a note:
" The company is not running Linux binary code that was compiled from any
version of Linux that contains SCO’s copyrighted application binary interface
code (“ABI Code”) specifically identified in the attached notification
letter."
* Does that mean they refer to application and not the kernel.(because of
'running')
* The DMCA is only vallid maybe when someone stripped the copyright protection.
When someone copied source code, than it is copyright voilation and not the DMCA
voilation because there is no copy protection. Also when someone copies
libraries from an SCO machine to a Linux machine ,thats for the same reason no
DMC violation. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cc on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:22 AM EST |
| DV
D-Jon wins new legal victory
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:24 AM EST |
....violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act....
"The letter also
states, 'In addition, neither SCO nor any predecessor in interest has ever
placed an affirmative notice in Linux that the copyrighted code in question
could be used or distributed under the GPL. As a result, any distribution of
Linux by a software vendor or a re-distribution of Linux by an end user that
contains any of the identified UNIX code violates SCO's rights under the DMCA,
insofar as the distributor knows of these violations.'"
Sounds like SCO
wants to stop the distribution of Linux. The only thing in the DMCA about a
notice is a take down notice. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:24 AM EST |
According to SCO's 8K, Q1 2004 income, will be:
"In its first fiscal quarter ending January 31, 2004, the Company expects
total revenue to be in the range of $10 million to $15 million, which is in line
with first quarter revenue in the previous year. UNIX products and services are
expected to represent the majority of consolidated first quarter revenue.
Revenue from SCOsource licenses is expected to be minimal in the first
quarter..."
and Q1 2004 expenses will be:
"Operating expenses relating to the Company’s UNIX business are
anticipated to remain flat during fiscal 2004. Expenses associated with
SCOsource initiatives are expected to increase in fiscal 2004 as the Company
pursues and expands the scope of its legal strategy to enforce and protect its
UNIX intellectual property."
So for first quarter 2004 we can expect the same income as Q1 2003 (they hope),
same expenses as Q4 (fingers crossed), with rocketing litigation fees (without a
doubt)... you do the math.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: thinkliberty on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:30 AM EST |
From
http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:hDv80b3KXdMJ:https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bu
gzilla/show_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D38248+abi-linux+sco&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
"Additional Comment #12 From Gary Mason on 2001-07-10 20:02 -------
There is a current linux-abi module available now. We have tried it out and it
works perfect on out 2.4.6 kernel. To get the latest linux-abi-2.4.6, go to
this
link:
ftp.openlinux.org:/pub/people/hch/linux-abi/linux-abi-2.4.6.0.diff.
All of our sco binaries are working perfectly under this version."
It looks like SCO is asking for people to take down information they released
under the GPL.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:32 AM EST |
IANAL, but my take on letter #1...
"SCO has requested that each licensee respond by the end of January.
According to the terms of the license agreement, failure to respond to the
request or failure to certify full compliance gives SCO the right to terminate
the agreement and require the licensee to discontinue use of the
software."
[note: you MUST state that you are in full compliance WITH YOUR LICENCE - not
this letter!!!]
My response would be:
---
Dear Darl,
As per your closing paragraph, we have reviewed our license [and the
side-letter] and can confirm that we are fully compliant with the terms as
described in our licence agreement.
Your letter is interesting, but is 'based on' the licence rather than being a
part of it. As such, the items in your letter are either "complied
with" [as they are covered by the licence], or fall outside the scope of
our licence. As a result there is no need for us to respond to this part of
your letter.
Merry christmas,
A licensor[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rongage on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:33 AM EST |
From our friend edgar over at the Securities and
Exchange Commission
SCO reported a net loss for the fourth quarter
of fiscal 2003 of $1.6 million, or $0.12 per diluted common share. Net
income for fiscal 2003 was $5.4 million, or $0.34 per diluted common
share, compared to a net loss of $24.9 million, or $1.93 per diluted
common share, in fiscal 2002.
Maybe it's my inattentive memory playing
games with me, but wasn't our buddy Darl's stock options going to vest fully
upon 4 consecutive profitable quarters? Doesn't this SEC filing show that they
haven't made any actual profit this quarter, thus sending Darl's vesting clock
back to day-1? ---
Ron Gage - Linux Consultant
LPI1, MCP, A+,
NET+
Pontiac, Michigan [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:34 AM EST |
As SCO tried to pursue its original end-user licensing strategy -- which boils
down to suing enterprise end-users users of derivatives of copyrighted material
contained in BSDI/Berkeley Unix based upon its alleged identity with or
similarity to copyrighted material found in 1994 USL/ATT Unix now licensed by
SCO -- I suspect that they ran straight into the STILL-SECRET settlement of the
1992-94 lawsuit negotiated between USL/Novell and BSDI/University of California.
That settlement still binds SCO as ATT's "successor in interest."
Although the settlement's content remains sealed, since it is the basis for
judges in California and NJ dismissing jurisdiction (without prejudice, so BSD
and Berkeley may re-open the case - AND THEY SHOULD) at a minimum it contains
some promise - a contractual commitment - not to sue developers and end-users of
BSDI Unix -- and its derivatives (which could include contributions from that
code-base to Linux) -- for alleged copyright violations based upon identity with
or similarity to anything found in ATT/USL/Novell Unix as of 1994.
To evade that still-effective restriction, which of course recipients of SCO's
demand letters don't have access to - so they don't know how much they are
protected by it - SCO now seeks to shift the burden onto all Unix users and
create an alternate cause-of-action: by asking them to certify -- in a new
contract term -- that they have not done anything that could serve as the BASIS
for a copyright suit by ATT/USL/Novell copyright holders based upon what has
been done with Berkeley/BSD code. Clever, but transparent to those paying close
attention.
It would be very foolish for any Unix licensee to offer the certification
requested by SCO -- let SCO carry out its implied threat to pull users' Unix
licenses first, and then end-users will be able to get the NJ and Califonia
courts to enforce the 1994 settlement. But this is a round-about solution. The
time has come for those most responsible for defending the rights of
BSD/Berkeley Unix users - what began after all as a principled issue of academic
freedom for IP developed at a public university with DARPA grant-support - to
insist that SCO obey the 1994 settlement. It is time for the University of
California to go back to court and insist on enforcement of the 1994 settlement.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:37 AM EST |
That would explain why they say that the alleged
infringements started with kernel version 2.4.
Before this there was iBCS module which allowed
someone to run ferinstance Oracle v.7 for one of
the _other_ *nixes on Linux up to v.2.2.
But wait a minute: Linux ABI is not really part
of the kernel, at least not of the plain-vanilla
ones at kernel.org. Linux ABI is a separate
project at SourceForge, and available as a kernel
patch - i.e. you patch the kernel to install the
compatibility modules and recompile.
Linux ABI is not even part of many of the Linux
distros out there - not in Slackware 8.1, not
Knoppix 3.3. It is part of RH 7.3, but absent
from RH's Fedora project (Yarrow).
I'm doing government work for the time being,
porting a legacy Oracle / Forms 3.0 application
on portable PC's from SCO OpenServer 5 to Linux
because of the need for better hardware support,
among other things. In the process I'm actually
having a bit of trouble finding the "right" Linux
distro with - guess what - proper Linux ABI
support...
o<:-)>>> *and Merry Christmas to y'all*
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:41 AM EST |
The longer this goes on, the more I have to think there is either one
huge ace in the hole McBride has up his sleeve (we are just not
seeing it) or this is nothing but an elaborate pump and dump
scheme. Neither of those two things seem to fit entirely what's going
on, so what is SCO really up to?
None of this really makes much sense to me. Most people would
agree, especially of the legal persuasion, that it is very inappropriate
to comment in public about an active law suit. Yet, here is McBride (I
really want to call him McBribe) that has consistently, almost on a
weekly basis done the following;
1. Accuse nearly everyone of copyright or IP infringement.
2. Offered some code at one of their meetings that turned out to not
even be their own code.
3. Sent out (supposedly) two rounds of extortionist letters to some
companies.
4. Considers GPL to be invalid but to do so means (IMO) the whole
copyright act is invalid.
There is more to this litany but will stop there. I must be one simple
minded dunderhead because if I fail to see how McBride thinks his
ranting, raving, extortion attempts and such behavior outside the one
law suit they have is going to support his position. The only real
effect that I can see is it further confirms in everyones mind (at least
in mine) he is about the worst CEO that ever was.
I understand the concept of using FUD to coerce potential victims
towards your goal but does he really think everyone is that stupid? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hamjudo on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:43 AM EST |
| SCO's goal with this DMCA sideshow, is to push the financial news out of the
limelight.
If SCO plays their cards right, this DMCA circus will generate
news coverage for some time. It may be far from positive news for SCO, but it
will not be very interesting for investors.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JMonroy on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:47 AM EST |
SCO is using the DMCA as a backdrop to cause concern and fear in the mind of the
recipient reader. After all, the RIAA (Darl's self-admitted heroes) used the
DMCA angle to successfully wrangle 12-year olds into submission until they were
put in their place by a federal judge. By sending these letters,
SCO is attempting to accomplish 3 obvious things:
1) Fish for a
company to sue as promised earlier this month.
2) Offset the bad news about
their earnings, propping SCOX further.
3) Create a distraction for the press
to feed on so they ignore the important questions (like, "What are your
projected earnings from SCOSource licensing for the next 3
quarters?")
Also, regarding this tidbit from the press
release:
"Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network
of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers [..]"
First it
was 5000 developers, then 8000, now 4000. Wow... quite the finicky bunch those
SCO developers, wouldn't you say? Or perhaps it's an accounting
problem...?
(...snickers, points and laughs at SCO... ;-) )[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nathan Hand on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:53 AM EST |
This is the most interesting bit from the letter.
The
company is not running Linux binary code that was
compiled from any version of
Linux that contains SCO’s copyrighted application
binary interface code (“ABI
Code”) specifically identified in the attached
notification
letter.
So this is nothing more than a transparent
attempt to threaten their existing licensees to prevent them from jumping ship
to Linux. "If you're running Linux compiled with the 'SCO personality' then
we'll sue you so you'd better just continue paying licensing fees for UnixWare
and/or OpenServer". Does this sound like anti-competitive behaviour to anybody
else?
This is nothing more than sour grapes. SCO was losing marketshare
because (a) their products sucked (b) their products were too expensive (c)
Linux did the same job at a lower price. SCO recognised they'd need to make
their own products better than Linux (impossible) or make the legality of Linux
so uncertain that nobody outside of academia bothers to use it.
SCO has
gone with the second strategy. To achieve that disgusting goal - destroying
Linux because their own products couldn't compete - SCO developed a
three-pronged attack.
- Threaten their existing OpenServer/UnixWare
licensees with the DMCA. Create the impression that Linux is more financially
risky than simply renewing existing licenses for OpenServer/UnixWare. This stops
their revenue stream from evaporating.
- Litigate against previous business
partners. Create enough legal hassle for companies like IBM that they just walk
away from Linux. This destroys a valuable source of contributions and stops the
technology gap widening between Linux and SCO.
- Create a negative
controversy around Linux by claiming that end-users can be sued. This creates
enough uncertainty in the market that companies stick with "safe" alternatives
like Windows or (worse) migrate away from Linux. This stops the Linux community
from growing any larger than it already has. Bear in mind that the Linux
community is the source of Linux developers; a smaller community means less
developers means fewer improvements.
To summarise this strategy; (1)
stem the bleeding (2) terrorize the allies (3) attack the supply routes.
But what this all boils down to is Linux is and always was SCO's biggest
threat. Nobody wanted SCO's products because Linux was better. So the only hope
SCO had for survival was to destroy Linux. There is no need for a Sun or
Microsoft conspiracy in all this. SCO has been backed into a corner by the
success of Linux. This is why SCO is fighting like rabid rats to destroy Linux;
they never had any other choice.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:55 AM EST |
1. RedHat ---> Emergency Injunction
Someone needs to go this route, this is getting crazy. Hell, if Michael Jackson
can get one in 24 hours, duh! I would think they have plenty of ground,
evidence, etc... Between the press, and IBM case, "we just don't
know", this should be a no brainer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: freeio on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:58 AM EST |
Doesn't a DMCA takedown notice start the legal clock ticking, with a fairly
short time limit, to prove that what is required to be taken down is in fact
what the claimint says it is, and that it is up illegally? The matter of
specificity becomes very important very quickly, since it is necessary to know
what exactly is to be taken down. The answer "all of everything
linux" is most certainly not sufficient.
---
73 de w4ti[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:02 AM EST |
| Wow. They're actually sending DMCA takedowns without specifying the exact files
in question? That's contrary to the explicit requirements of the DMCA, and IIRC
takes them straight over the line to extortion and barratry. Better yet, if
anyone contests the takedown, TSG must file a copyright infringement suit
or forfeit. If they send out a thousand and even a few percent contest ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:07 AM EST |
Copyright Act codified by Congress at 17 U.S.C. Section 1202.
Says that is not allowed to remove copyright notice or replace with another.
See
<a
href="http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/j_gibbs_1.html">here</
a>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:10 AM EST |
OK, after thinking about it, the DMCA letter isn't saying what I originally
thought.
My theory:
- this is all about SCO UNIX libraries, which some people may have been copied
from Unixware onto a linux installation. [ignore all the inneundo - abi does NOT
refer to a linux module, it can refer to anything with a binary interface (e.g.
a library)]
- the DMCA violation? The review of unixware by osnews mentioned that in order
to install unixware you need to enter a registration code. That is likely to be
the protection device being circumvented.
- this also has nothing to do with the letters sent to licensors. [which is pure
fud designed to drive up stock price - those letters are totally useless].
[If this is the case, I would expect the recipients to be mostly ex-sco
customers...][ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: anesq on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:25 AM EST |
| A couple of notes are worthwhile:
First, while I'll take SCO's word on it
that this provision was part of the DMCA, it is not either of the provisions
that are usually thought of as "THE DMCA." The two more controversial DMCA
provisions are the notice and take down provision, by which a putative copyright
holder can get an ISP to take down allegedly infringed materials from a web page
(but which also gives the web page owner a mechanism to get it back up); and a
provision that prohibits circumvention of anti-copying mechanisms.
This
provision stands for the relatively benign proposition that one cannot alter a
copyright notice in order to conceal the origin of the work.
It’s also hard
to see how Linux end-users are going to be liable under it, unless they are also
developers. This statute requires a specific intent. Lets look at the
language:
(a) False Copyright Management Information. -
No person
shall knowingly and with the intent to induce, enable, facilitate, or
conceal infringement -
(1) provide copyright management
information that is false, or
(2)distribute or import for
distribution copyright management information that is false.
(emphasis
added)
So first SCO will have to show that any particular defendant
either falsified the copyright information itself, or distributed false
copyright management information. Neither of these activities is likely for
end-users.
Even if SCO can show altered copyright information, and can link
that to either the company making the change itself or to its distribution, it
still has to show that the alteration was done knowingly AND with intent
to induce / conceal infringement.
For distributors, SCO has some possibility
(however unlikely in reality) of showing this; but for end-users, it seems
extremely unlikely. Why would an end-user change SCO’s copyright notice?
Plus, the knowledge and intent parts of the statute will require a huge
amount of time and effort to prove (and for that matter, to defend), severely
raising fees.
The irony here is that if SCO really has copyrighted code in
Linux, plain old copyright law gives a much better cause of action against
end-users.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:26 AM EST |
The difference between what SCO provided to IBM and what SCO is now claiming is
important. They told IBM that the 591 files "may" contain SCO IP
scattered in them. They now seem to be claiming that each of the 65 files was
copied in toto from Unix.
We'll still have to see if they'll put that in writing, with the 65 files, the
Unix version, and the Linux version named. The one three-part, non-financial
question that most needs to be asked today is: "Does SCO now claim that 65
Unix files owned by SCO and not licenced under any BSD or GPL -like license were
copied in toto into Linux? Will SCO this month publicly name the 65 files that
it claims were copied in toto, with the Unix version nuber and the Linux version
number identified? Will you name one of the source files containing ABI code
that you claim infringes SCO's rights and the versions today?"
We need to pin them down on what they are claiming. Yes answers will commit them
to publicly specify their claims. No answers will scream for explanation. If
possible we should bring this question to the attention of the analysts
before today's teleconference, and I am about to start a search for a news
article with talkback that I can post to make this question more prominent
publicly. Has anyone spotted such an article?
IIRC, there were persons who have not signed NDAs that have access to SCO's
source and can run the comparator program to verify whether the code is
substantially the same. If SCO is really claiming what it seems to be claiming,
we should be able to get precise verification of the truth or falsity quickly.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:36 AM EST |
| See
http://lwn.net/Articles/64052/
Th
ey are mostly header files like various variants of errno.h. Pretty fundamental
in the sense that Linux just does not work without them. On the other hand,
these files mainly contain just constant definitions: basically lists of names
that are part of standard POSIX interface and the corresponding internal
numbers.
IANAL but I think an argument could be made that this kind of stuff
is not copyrightable. The are just technical interfaces that can be implemented
in only one way (minus some typographical variations). There is no creativity
involved, just drudgery.
Unless... is it is possible that SCO can somehow
copyright a particular combination of numeric constants for error and signal
numbers?! If such thing is possible, it would be radical: it would be impossible
to make independent reimplementations that would be compatible with any
proprietary OS. Good bye Wine etc...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:37 AM EST |
This seems to be a copy of the letter'
http://lwn.net/Articles/64051/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:49 AM EST |
http://lwn.net/Articles/64051/
cant wait for linus's response to this !!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:56 AM EST |
http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi?QuestionID=132
This is how to file counter-notice and putback under the DMCA.
Very useful, since there are plenty of reasons to doubt that SCO has any valid
claims.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:02 AM EST |
From SCO's letter:
Distribution of the copyrighted ABI Code, or
binary code compiled using the ABI code, with copyright management information
deleted or altered, violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(“DMCA”) codified by Congress at 17 U.S.C.
§1202.
Exactly how does one tell whether or not a binary was
compiled from
source that did (or did not) contain a specific copyright
attribution?
I realize that one can contrive for such an attribution to
be represented
in a compiled file, but did AT&T vs. Berkely require
attributions to be in
such form?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Dumb question - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:18 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: zjimward on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:02 AM EST |
I was very interested in finding out more on ABI. In doing some research I came
up with the following:
http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-01_Story01.html
Comments from this article:
What libraries are included in the SCO intellectual property (IP) claims?
One of the questions we asked SCO-Caldera's Blake Stowell is what SCO libraries
are involved. Here is Blake's complete e-mail reply to that question.
On a Linux system, these OpenServer Libraries will be installed in either /shlib
or /emul/osr5/shlib
The specific library files in the directory will be:
libX11R5_s, libX11R5a_s, libX11R5b_s, libXR4sco_s, libXtWXm1.0a_s, libXtXm1.2_s,
libXtXm1.2c_s,
libXtXm114_s, libXtXm_s, libc_s, libcma_s, libdce_s,
libkrb5stand_s, libnsl_s, libnsl_s.att, libsc_s,
protlib_s
In order for the OpenServer libraries to work, the Linux kernel must have the
appropriate Linux-abi module loaded. If you run the command "lsmod"
on a Linux system, you will see a list of active kernel modules. The ones that
enable OpenServer emulation are:
binfmt_coff, abi-util, lcall7, abi-svr4, abi-sco
UnixWare libraries are less likely to be in use. They also consist of a much
larger list of files (85 files). Because the file structure of Linux is so
similar to UnixWare, it is likely that the UnixWare libraries would all be under
a directory with a name like /emul/uw7. Under this directory you would see
directories called /usr/lib and /usr/X that held most of the 85 UnixWare dynamic
shared library files.
MozillaQuest Magazine: Regarding binfmt_coff, abi-util, lcall7, abi-svr4,
abi-sco; are any of these modules SCO IP?
Blake Stowell: No, none of the code in the Linux ABI modules contains SCO IP.
This code is under the GPL and it re-implements publicly documented interfaces.
We do not have an issue with the Linux ABI modules. The IP that we are licensing
is all in the shared libraries - these libraries are needed by many OpenServer
applications *in addition* to the Linux ABI.
January 14, 2003
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-980514.html
"There's a little bit of ignorance on the part of some customers,"
a source familiar with the plan said. But at the same time, the source added,
"there are customers using the libraries that know they're not supposed
to be using it."
Using the libraries allows programs designed for SCO Unix to be run, unmodified,
on Linux machines in conjunction with a package called Linux-ABI. That's a key
step for companies moving servers from SCO Unix to Linux with minimum
disruption."
*my personal comment*
Seems that in the wake of SCO's present statements/letters that they are upset
that they didn't understand the GPL.
**
I'm sure this link has been seen here before, but it's a very interesting
read:
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween9.html
(see The SCO OpenServer Libraries)
Link to Christoph Hellwig's Sun, 18 Nov 2001 email stating that Linux-ABI
2.4.14.0 release for Linux 2.4.14 was available:
http://lwn.net/2001/1122/a/linux-abi.php3
Here's where it all started:
http://www.suncoastlug.org/anderson.html
24 July 1999
*my personal comment*
From this point the LSB wanted a common binary interface, must like SCO was
involved in for the Intel platform, but only delivered for their own products
and not to the rest of the Industry. Then along comes Caldera. They aquire SCO,
see their ABI and incorporate it into Linux. Now every one gets the best of both
worlds. Things change at SCO and along comes McBride. Dollar signs in his eyes
he wants to make money from the ABI, but realizes that the only way he can own
it solely is to make the GPL illegal.
**[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ssavitzky on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:17 AM EST |
The quoted phrase, "Once you have reviewed our position we will be happy
to further discuss your options and work with you to remedy this problem",
is more commonly seen with patents. The idea is that the alleged infringer has
the options of applying for a license to be on the safe side, or determining
that they're not infringing (and risking a lawsuit if they're wrong). But
because it's not a direct allegation of infringement, the recipient can't come
back and countersue.
---
--Steve Savitzky[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmc on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:17 AM EST |
From the letter:
include/asm-alpha/errno.h
include/asm-arm/errno.h
include/asm-cris/errno.h
include/asm-i386/errno.h
include/asm-ia64/errno.h
include/asm-m68k/errno.h
include/asm-mips/errno.h
include/asm-mips64/errno.h
include/asm-parisc/errno.h
include/asm-ppc/errno.h
include/asm-ppc64/errno.h
include/asm-s390/errno.h
include/asm-s390x/errno.h
include/asm-sh/errno.h
include/asm-sparc/errno.h
include/asm-sparc64/errno.h
include/asm-x86_64/errno.h
include/asm-alpha/signal.h
include/asm-arm/signal.h
include/asm-cris/signal.h
include/asm-i386/signal.h
include/asm-ia64/signal.h
include/asm-m68k/signal.h
include/asm-mips/signal.h
include/asm-mips64/signal.h
include/asm-parisc/signal.h
include/asm-ppc/signal.h
include/asm-ppc64/signal.h
include/asm-s390/signal.h
include/asm-s390x/signal.h
include/asm-sh/signal.h
include/asm-sparc/signal.h
include/asm-sparc64/signal.h
include/asm-x86_64/signal.h
include/linux/stat.h
include/linux/ctype.h
lib/ctype.c
include/asm-alpha/ioctl.h
include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h
include/asm-arm/ioctl.h
include/asm-cris/ioctl.h
include/asm-i386/ioctl.h
include/asm-ia64/ioctl.h
include/asm-m68k/ioctl.h
include/asm-mips/ioctl.h
include/asm-mips64/ioctl.h
include/asm-mips64/ioctls.h
include/asm-parisc/ioctl.h
include/asm-parisc/ioctls.h
include/asm-ppc/ioctl.h
include/asm-ppc/ioctls.h
include/asm-ppc64/ioctl.h
include/asm-ppc64/ioctls.h
include/asm-s390/ioctl.h
include/asm-s390x/ioctl.h
include/asm-sh/ioctl.h
include/asm-sh/ioctls.h
include/asm-sparc/ioctl.h
include/asm-sparc/ioctls.h
include/asm-sparc64/ioctl.h
include/asm-sparc64/ioctls.h
include/asm-x86_64/ioctl.h
include/linux/ipc.h
include/linux/acct.h
include/asm-sparc/a.out.h
include/linux/a.out.h
arch/mips/boot/ecoff.h
include/asm-sparc/bsderrno.h
include/asm-sparc/solerrno.h
include/asm-sparc64/bsderrno.h
include/asm-sparc64/solerrno.h
All but one of these are headers which you'd expect to find in /usr/include and
subdirectories in a binary-only distribution.
Most of them are duplicates for alternative architectures.
In all cases as far as I can see they'd have to be written exactly as they are
to fit in with POSIX specs. No one could write them differently apart from
different placing of white space and comments.
There have to be limits on the ability of someone to copyright
"2+2=4"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:24 AM EST |
I'm listening to the conference call, and Darl McBride specifically mention
header files that have copyright notices removed.
Hope this helps[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Header files - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:39 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:30 AM EST |
It seems to me that these files need to be included not only in the kernel code,
but in application code that is designed to run under Unix (or POSIX or Linux).
Does anyone know if this code has been previously released for such purposes by
any of AT&T, USL, Novell etc. and under what terms. I think these files are
similar to the win*.h files for the MS os. If Microsoft did not give complete
license to it's use - no one would right apps for MS. Anyone more familiar with
Unix/Linux software know about this?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:32 AM EST |
It certainly looks like we have another case of abuse of DMCA here.
Although congress have the right intention in mind with DMCA, the number of
abuses of DMCA (first garage door, then RIAA subpoenas, and now SCO?) makes
congress looks like a fool and incompetent.
Time to squash DMCA and substitute it with something more clearly worded!
IANAL, in fact, my only legal trainning is from groklaw! However, it seems like
SCO is trying to overwelm everyone with legal jargon and every law they can
find: That's does not look like a good sign for SCO case. Its like charging
someone with 10001 violation in the hope that one will be upheld by the court.
It's fishing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:35 AM EST |
Oh well it was good while it lasted.
I suppose we now have to format our hard drives and go back to windoze.
SCO wins fair and square.
Anyway I had this idea the other day, Im thinking of writing a new open source
operating system based entirely on open standards. Any help from experienced
coders would be appreciated. Not sure what to call it yet.
Bzzzzz. Bzzzzz.
Blimey, my alarm just went off. I was having a strange nightmare.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:54 AM EST |
As I read it the DMCA section prohibits the removal of a copyright notice or
from distributing a product with the copyright notice illegalyl removed. I
don't see anything about usage by the end user. How exactly does this apply to
end-users of Linux?
-pooky
---
IANAL, etc...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:58 AM EST |
****DMCA liability extends to those who have reasonable grounds to know that a
distribution (or re-distribution as required by the GPL) of the altered code or
copyright information will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an
infringement of any right under the DMCA.' ****
Required by the GPL? Hmmm.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MattZN on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:06 PM EST |
| How absurd. Read the last paragraph.
The code identified above was also
part of a settlement agreement between the University of California at Berkeley
and Berkeley Systems Development, Inc. (collectively “BSDI”) and UNIX Systems
Laboratories, Inc. regarding alleged violations by BSDI of USL's rights in UNIX
technology. The settlement agreement between USL and BSDI addressed conditions
upon which BSDI could continue to distribute its version of UNIX, BSD Lite 4.4,
or any successor versions, including certain “UNIX Derived Files” which include
the ABI Code. A complete listing of the UNIX Derived Files is attached. The ABI
Code identified above is part of the UNIX Derived Files and, as such, must carry
USL / SCO copyright notices and may not be used in any GPL distribution,
inasmuch as the affirmative consent of the copyright holder has not been
obtained, and will not be obtained, for such a distribution under the
GPL.
SCO is making some wild claims here. First, they are saying that
the consequences of 'forgetting' to place appropriate copyright notices on code
that is already freely available is enough for them to ream hundreds of
dollars per use out of you. Absurd. Second, they claim that the code released
under the BSD copyright is not compatible with the GPL. In fact, it is. The
University of California removed the one license clause that would have
prevented it on July 22nd 1999:
NOTE: The copyright of UC Berkeley's
Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD")
source has been updated. The copyright
addendum may be found
at
ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change and is
included
below.
July 22, 1999
To All Licensees, Distributors of Any Version of
BSD:
As you know, certain of the Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD")
source
code files require that further distributions of products containing all
or
portions of the software, acknowledge within their advertising materials
that
such products contain software developed by UC Berkeley and
its
contributors.
Specifically, the provision reads:
" * 3. All
advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
*
must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes
software developed by the University of
* California, Berkeley
and its contributors."
Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are
no longer required to
include the acknowledgement within advertising materials.
Accordingly, the
foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is
hereby deleted
in its entirety.
William Hoskins
Director, Office of
Technology Licensing
University of California, Berkeley
There is
nothing else in the BSD license that I can see that prevents the code from being
relicenced under the GPL, and even if there were the idea that SCO has the right
to enforce UC Berkeley's copyright and license terms is absurd.
The contents
of, say, include/asm-i386/errno.h on Linux, is indeed virtually identical to the
BSD licensed errno.h, and although the error numbers are the same the comments
do appear to be copied verbatim, but the absolute worst that happens here
assuming that this code was not derived from some other PD and free code release
(e.g. like from V3) is that Linus adds appropriate recognition to the header
file in the form of the appropriate BSD copyright statement.
Signal.h is
even less interesting. SCO has buckus, here. We've gone from 'millions of
lines of code' to, literally, 20 copies of three header files which, at worst,
were released under the BSD license and at best might be part of other
PD/Freeware code giveaways made by Caldara.
-Matt [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:08 PM EST |
January/February 2003 -
Blake Stowell: No, none of the code in the Linux ABI modules contains SCO IP.
This code is under the GPL and it re-implements publicly documented interfaces.
We do not have an issue with the Linux ABI modules. The IP that we are licensing
is all in the shared libraries - these libraries are needed by many OpenServer
applications *in addition* to the Linux ABI.
http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-01_Story01.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:16 PM EST |
| Most (if not all) of the listed files appear as part of the table for header
files published by the Open Group (The holder of the Unix copyright) see:
http://www.unix-sy
stems.org/version3/apis/headers.html
Does anyone have access to the actual
Open Group files to compare with the files in Linux?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dan_stephans on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:21 PM EST |
What's really ridiculous is these are trivial files that are publicly
documented (see
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/basedefs/errno.h.html for
instance)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:55 PM EST |
| Now of course I could be wrong, but aren't these header files basically
paraphrases of the POSIX Federal Information Processing Standard? Apparently,
SCO is going with a "derivative works" or "paraphrase" definition that covers
any C header file which assigns the value 9 to the symbol SIGKILL, and that
covers all possible instantiations of the POSIX standard. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- FIPS - Authored by: lightsail on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 04:04 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:08 PM EST |
In the following is a discussion on derivative works that includes information
on the tests of what has been found to be copyrightable by the courts which
says:
"... some distinct parts of source and object code have been
found unprotectable. For example, constants, the invariable integers comprising
part of formulas
used to perform calculations in a program, are unprotectable.
Further, although common errors
found in two programs can provide strong
evidence of copying, they are not afforded any
copyright protection over and
above the protection given to the expression containing them."
The
files listed in the letter are all constants files!
The full text is
here:
http://www.pbwt.com/Att
orney/files/ravicher_1.pdf[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stanmuffin on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:21 PM EST |
| Since SCO is now bullying all of its licensees and threatening to sue them if
they keep using Linux, what do you think they'll do? Drop Linux? Pay SCO
extortion fees?
I think a more likely outcome is that they'll drop SCO and
keep using Linux. In fact, this has already begun to
happen. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Bored Huge Krill on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:21 PM EST |
| TSG's claim with respect to the section regarding "copyright management
information" which covers copyright notices is suggesting that copyright notices
were improperly removed in contravention of the referenced clause in the
DMCA.
However, the modification dates I see on the few Linux source files I
looked at is much older than that. A few I checked haven't been touched
since 1993 (unsurprising, really). A few questions:
1. Surely the DMCA is the
incorrect law here? The law can't apply to retrospective removal of copyright
notices. Can it?
2. Is this code in the 32V ancient UNIX? There most
certainly is an errno.h and ioctl.h in there.
3. What was the license for
32V? Is it actually public domain, or under a BSD license?
4. Is this the
best they could do?
Krill [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmccorm on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:40 PM EST |
I could be misreading my law here, but has anyone looked at Section 1203, which
spells out the relief for violations of Section 1202?<BR>
<a
href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1203.html">http://www
4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1203.html</A><P>
It doesn't say that they are subject to takedown notifications. It says you may
bring civil action in a US district court. It does give the court some good
powers, like injunctions, impounding, damage awards, costs/attorney's fees, and
modification or destruction of the violating product/device.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ak on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:01 PM EST |
That is what SCO had to say about ABI not so long ago:
"Because ibcs2 is an open specification, the Linux community was able to
freely copy this and rename it Linux ABI or Linux Application Binary
Interface."
See page "How UNIX Applications run on Linux using SCO Shared
Libraries" of the Power Point Presentation
http://sco.com/scosource/SCOsource_Presentation.ppt[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:10 PM EST |
Straight from <a
href="http://www.linuxworld.com/story/38303.htm">LinuxWorld</a
> - here's a letter with the listed files
------------------------
This is a copy of SCO's December 19 copyright letter, as received from Avi
Dines via Don Marti.]
December 19, 2003
Re: The SCO Group, Inc. (“SCO”)
Dear Unix Licensee,
In May 2003, SCO warned about enterprise use of the Linux operating system in
violation of its intellectual property rights in UNIX technology. Without
exhausting or explaining all potential claims, this letter addresses one
specific area in which certain versions of Linux violate SCO's rights in UNIX.
In this letter we are identifying a portion of our copyright protected code that
has been incorporated into Linux without our authorization. Also, our copyright
management information has been removed from these files.
These facts support our position that the use of the Linux operating system in a
commercial setting violates our rights under the United States Copyright Act,
including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. We are notifying you of these
facts so you can take steps to discontinue these violations. We believe these
violations are serious, and we will take appropriate actions to protect our
rights. No one may use our copyrighted code except as authorized by us. The
details of our position are set forth below. Once you have reviewed our
position, we will be happy to further discuss your options and work with you to
remedy this problem.
Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces (“ABI Code”) have been copied
verbatim from our copyrighted UNIX code base and contributed to Linux for
distribution under the General Public License (“GPL”) without proper
authorization and without copyright attribution. While some application
programming interfaces (“API Code”) have been made available over the years
through POSIX and other open standards, the UNIX ABI Code has only been made
available under copyright restrictions. AT&T made these binary interfaces
available in order to support application development to UNIX operating systems
and to assist UNIX licensees in the development process. The UNIX ABIs were
never intended or authorized for unrestricted use or distribution under the GPL
in Linux. As the copyright holder, SCO has never granted such permission.
Nevertheless, many of the ABIs contained in Linux, and improperly distributed
under the GPL, are direct copies of our UNIX copyrighted software code.
Any part of any Linux file that includes the copyrighted binary interface code
must be removed. Files in Linux version 2.4.21 and other versions that
incorporate the copyrighted binary interfaces include:
include/asm-alpha/errno.h
include/asm-arm/errno.h
include/asm-cris/errno.h
include/asm-i386/errno.h
include/asm-ia64/errno.h
include/asm-m68k/errno.h
include/asm-mips/errno.h
include/asm-mips64/errno.h
include/asm-parisc/errno.h
include/asm-ppc/errno.h
include/asm-ppc64/errno.h
include/asm-s390/errno.h
include/asm-s390x/errno.h
include/asm-sh/errno.h
include/asm-sparc/errno.h
include/asm-sparc64/errno.h
include/asm-x86_64/errno.h
include/asm-alpha/signal.h
include/asm-arm/signal.h
include/asm-cris/signal.h
include/asm-i386/signal.h
include/asm-ia64/signal.h
include/asm-m68k/signal.h
include/asm-mips/signal.h
include/asm-mips64/signal.h
include/asm-parisc/signal.h
include/asm-ppc/signal.h
include/asm-ppc64/signal.h
include/asm-s390/signal.h
include/asm-s390x/signal.h
include/asm-sh/signal.h
include/asm-sparc/signal.h
include/asm-sparc64/signal.h
include/asm-x86_64/signal.h
include/linux/stat.h
include/linux/ctype.h
lib/ctype.c
include/asm-alpha/ioctl.h
include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h
include/asm-arm/ioctl.h
include/asm-cris/ioctl.h
include/asm-i386/ioctl.h
include/asm-ia64/ioctl.h
include/asm-m68k/ioctl.h
include/asm-mips/ioctl.h
include/asm-mips64/ioctl.h
include/asm-mips64/ioctls.h
include/asm-parisc/ioctl.h
include/asm-parisc/ioctls.h
include/asm-ppc/ioctl.h
include/asm-ppc/ioctls.h
include/asm-ppc64/ioctl.h
include/asm-ppc64/ioctls.h
include/asm-s390/ioctl.h
include/asm-s390x/ioctl.h
include/asm-sh/ioctl.h
include/asm-sh/ioctls.h
include/asm-sparc/ioctl.h
include/asm-sparc/ioctls.h
include/asm-sparc64/ioctl.h
include/asm-sparc64/ioctls.h
include/asm-x86_64/ioctl.h
include/linux/ipc.h
include/linux/acct.h
include/asm-sparc/a.out.h
include/linux/a.out.h
arch/mips/boot/ecoff.h
include/asm-sparc/bsderrno.h
include/asm-sparc/solerrno.h
include/asm-sparc64/bsderrno.h
include/asm-sparc64/solerrno.h[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:30 PM EST |
Thanks to notmrnice on the SCOX board for juxtaposing these quotes.
From the Dec 2003 letter:
"In addition, neither SCO nor any predecessor in interest has ever placed
an affirmative notice in Linux that the copyrighted code in question could be
used or distributed under the GPL. As a result, any distribution of Linux by a
software vendor or a re-distribution of Linux by an end user that contains any
of the identified UNIX code violates SCO's rights under the DMCA, insofar as
the distributor knows of these violations."
From a MozillaQuest interview in Feb 2003:
"Blake Stowell: No, none of the code in the Linux ABI modules contains SCO
IP. This code is under the GPL and it re-implements publicly documented
interfaces. We do not have an issue with the Linux ABI modules."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:41 PM EST |
Now that we know for sure the only licenses that SCOG sold were to Sun and
Microsoft (and those weren't Linux licenses either, Darl), we know that Darl's
reply to the reported in the Q3 earnings conference call were midirection at
best, but more likely they were downright dirty lies. If you were listening you
could hear the pause before he answered. Oh my.
Quote:
Robert McMillan: ... could just tell me a little bit
more about this SCOsource revenue?
Darl McBride: [long rambling statement which looks like an attempt to avoid a
direct answer]
Robert McMillan: So are you saying there are new licensees, or... not?
Darl McBride: [pause] Yes. [I'm thinking: "yes" what, Darl?]
Robert McMillan: You are saying there are new licensees?
Darl McBride: Well... in terms of what we are projecting going into the next
quarter, yes.
Robert McMillan: Ok.
So the reporter bought it. But you can see from Darl's last answer that he was
only _projecting_ additional licensees. That means his first answer was wrong.
That or he tried to pull a weasle-word stunt where he said "Yes, there are
new licensees or there are not new licensees".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RealProgrammer on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:48 PM EST |
In SCO's December 19, 2003 letter to UNIX licensees, they claim that 65
Linux source code files were copied verbatim from SCO's version of Unix. That
claim is false. SCO also claims that what they fancifully call the "application
binary interface" is their proprietary product. That claim is both false and
irrelevant.
The files listed comply with the published POSIX standard in
the most obvious way; any copyright violation results from failure to obfuscate
the trivial. In addition, there may be 65 files listed in the December 19
letter, but that number is inflated by listing 10 files and a bunch of
architecture-dependent duplicates.
The files with names ending in
'.h' are "header" files that contain shorthand definitions to be used in common
among other source files that need those definitions. Different architectures
require slightly different header files.
For example, the Linux kernel
source tree contains several copies of 'errno.h', each of which differs only
slightly from the others. This file lists human-readable labels for the various
error numbers (1 to 255) in a POSIX system. The list is sorted numerically by
error value, with a comment for each error number.
The file name
"errno.h" and the labels for the various values are industry-wide C language and
POSIX standards that come not from a particular Unix vendor but from the ISO and
IEEE, as referenced in IEEE Std 1003.1, 2003 Edition, the System Interfaces
Volume, Section 2.3, Error Numbers. SCO applied for and received Unixware
7.1 POSIX
certification, indicating SCO's acceptance of the POSIX standard. SCO
doesn't even claim to own the C language, thank God.
SCO is
attempting to claim ownership of the correspondence between the standard
human-readable label mnemonics and the actual error numbers themselves.
This correspondence is a fact that has been widely published. They can claim
copyright on the text and layout of their source and manuals, but not the facts
they represent. That would require a patent or some other mechanism that can
protect an idea or method; copyrights just protect expression.
A
programmer attempting to conform to the standard could easily produce an errno.h
with exactly the same contents. In fact, a programmer attempting to produce an
errno.h would have to obfuscate the code to make one that was significantly
different. In looking at several implementions of errno.h, I conclude that the
similarity of each one to the others arises from conformance to industry
standards, not from copying one another. The Linux versions in particular are
different from the System V version to which I had access.
To make the
problem clear, here is the top of "errno.h" file from Solaris (a licensed System
V version), then from Linux 2.4.20, then from cygwin. My apologies for the
fomatting:
Solaris
[...]
/*
*
*
Copyright Notice
*
* Notice of copyright on this source code product does not
indicate
* publication.
*
* (c) 1986-2000 Sun Microsystems, Inc.
*
(c) 1983,1984,1985,1986,1987,1988,1989 AT&T.
* All rights
reserved.
*/
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
/*
* Error codes
*/
#define EPERM 1 /* Not super-user */
#define ENOENT 2
/* No such file or directory */
#define ESRCH 3 /* No such process
*/
#define EINTR 4 /* interrupted system call */
#define
EIO 5 /* I/O error */
#
Linux
2.4.20
errno.h in Linux is just one line:
#include
<sys/errno.h>
which is obviously different from the System V
version. The include path is even more convoluted when compiling the kernel,
selecting the correct version of errno.h for the target architecture. It
eventually leads to:
[... no copyright notice ...]
#define EPERM
1 /* Operation not permitted */
#define ENOENT 2 /* No
such file or directory */
#define ESRCH 3 /* No such process
*/
#define EINTR 4 /* Interrupted system call */
#define EIO
5 /* I/O error */
#
Cygwin
[... top has lots
of cygwin-specific stuff, no copyright notice ...]
#define EPERM 1 /* Not
super-user */
#define ENOENT 2 /* No such file or directory */
#define ESRCH
3 /* No such process */
#define EINTR 4 /* Interrupted system call
*/
#define EIO 5 /* I/O error */
The argument that the
"application binary interface" is proprietary SCO code is thus obviously utter
hogwash.
Here are the files SCO is actually laying claim
to:
-
errno.h
-
signal.h
-
stat.h
-
ctype.h,
-
ctype.c
-
ioctl.h,
ioctls.h
-
ipc.h
-
acct.h
-
a.out.h
-
ecoff.h
That looks quite different than "65 files", doesn't
it? ---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I am a literate citizen) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not C, no... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 04:31 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: MyPersonalOpinio on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:57 PM EST |
You may be interested in taking a look at the OpenGroup/IEEE POSIX
standards describing most of these files [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:57 PM EST |
This is absolutely ridicolous. They inflated the number of files by specifiying
it for every architecture. This is the real list:
acct.h
a.out.h
bsderrno.h
ctype.c
ctype.h
ecoff.h
errno.h
ioctl.h
ioctls.h
ipc.h
signal.h
solerrno.h
stat.h
There is nothing fancy in these files. Most of them contain definitions of
numbers (#define). Such definitions allow to use a number by name, instead of
refering to its numeric value. The files have developed over decades and were
written from scratch. They are also very different from *BSD. This is a joke.
ctype.c/ctype.h is a table, that maps characters to types (like
"digit" or "alpha"). It has nothing to do with operating
systems and is absolutely obvious. It is used in millions of similar
implementations all over the world. Darl and his gang of morons belong in jail
for coming up with such bogus crap. IBM, if you read this: Please talk to your
state DA, just as I have done. If a big company does it, maybe finally somebody
will look into this scam.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nosnilmot on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 03:09 PM EST |
errno.h has been around since the beginning of Linux, and if anything was
copied from Minix
This version from Linux
0.01 is dated
1991-09-17, well before the BSDi vs USL settlement (which I think means that
there probably wasn't even a copyright notice on the BSD code
anyway)
Note the comment (presumably from Linus) that he didn't have
any other source of information for these numbers besides
Minix
I'm not sure of Minix's true heritage, but accourding to this earlier analysis, it's derived from UNIX V7, which Caldera released
under a BSD style license in January 2002
There's similar "code" in user.h from
UNIX V6, as published in "Lyons Commentary on Unix 6th Edition" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 03:11 PM EST |
Here's an excerpt from the SCOG 8K filing this
morning:
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001104
659%2D03%2D029014%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2003%5C12%5C22%5C&CoName=SCO+GROUP+I
NC&FormType=8%2DK&RcvdDate=12%2F22%2F2003&pdf=
DMCA
Notification Letter
SCO has commenced providing notification to selected
Fortune 1000 Linux end users outlining additional violations of SCO’s copyrights
contained in Linux. Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces have been
copied verbatim from the UNIX System V code base and contributed to Linux
without proper authorization and without copyright attribution. Any part of any
Linux file that includes the copyrighted binary interface code must be removed.
This ABI code was part of a 1994 settlement agreement involving the University
of California at Berkeley and Berkeley Systems Development, Inc.,
(BSDI).
The letter states: “Distribution of the copyrighted ABI code,
or binary code compiled using the ABI code, with copyright management
information deleted or altered, violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
codified by Congress at 17 U.S.C. §1202. DMCA liability extends to those
who have reasonable grounds to know that a distribution (or re-distribution
as required by the GPL) of the altered code or copyright information will
induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right under the
DMCA.”
The letter also states, “In addition, neither SCO nor any
predecessor in interest has ever placed an affirmative notice in Linux that the
copyrighted code in question could be used or distributed under the GPL. As a
result, any distribution of Linux by a software vendor or a re-distribution of
Linux by an end user that contains any of the identified UNIX code violates
SCO’s rights under the DMCA, insofar as the distributor knows of these
violations.”
Now maybe it's just me, but nowhere in the DMCA para
1202 does it say that end users have liability for use of a product that
infringes on this section. It is quite clearly stated that it is against the law
to strip the copyrights (the act of stripping) from a copyrighted material or to
distribute a work that has the copyrights stripped. End users who are not
distributors have no liability under this section of the DMCA.
SCOG -
Please show me the EXACT copyright law an end user is violating.
Better
yet, lets look at the second statement "resonable grounds to know". I
would say that when one entity disputes the origin of a work you use that
someone else has claimed (again SCO, see GPL), the end user does not have a
reasonable basis to know of infringement unless the claiming party has
established this legally against the defending party.
Since nothing has
been established outside of SCOG's public claims, it would seem to me that
distributors have nothing to worry about until SCOG finsihes suing the
"contributor" in court and establishes a legal basis for their
claims.
-pooky ---
IANAL, etc... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 03:32 PM EST |
| Just had to say it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: davep on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 03:45 PM EST |
Question: does anyone know how one would go about convincing or compelling the
University of California to release the contents of the BSD/SYSV settlement
agreement?
Seeing as the UoC is a government-funded entity, there must be some
California-equivalent to the Federal FOIA.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 03:49 PM EST |
Fine, SCO just put themselves into "put up or shut up" mode.
They have to
file a copyright infringement suit within 10 days, I believe, or go pack sand,
so to speak.
So, they need to show with "specifity" (spelling) what is
infringing, etc. or they can just go away and lick their wounds.
In any
case, I believe they are going to do a lot of self wound-licking pretty
soon.
Regards,
Fredrick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 03:50 PM EST |
During the press conference, Darl stated that:
- They had sat down with a number of Linux users to discuss licensing.
- Some of these people stated that they would buy licenses.
- Some of these people said they would stop using Linux.
- MOST of the people said they were waiting for more evidence and/or were
waiting for the outcome of the IBM suit.
...in other words, MOST of the people they approached about Linux licenses did
not want to play ball. So, now Darl is forced to come out with a new letter (the
Darl Mcbride Cash Advance: DMCA) which he states is INDEPENDENT of the IBM case.
I think this is a direct attempt to scare the people waiting for the outcome of
the trial, who he admits is the majority. He also made a point of saying that
once the recipients read his letter, they have been warned, and become
"willful" violators, and are thus subject to more monetary damages.
Mike A.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Rocketman56 on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 03:58 PM EST |
I got tired of the BU****IT.. so I went digging in the archives... Look what I
found...
Version 5: No sign of errno.h (November 1974)
Version 6: No sign of errno.h (July 1975)
From version 7 (original release by Bell Labs, not
the DEC patched version):
-rw-rw-r-- 3/3 635 1979-01-10 14:12:34 usr/include/errno.h
and what does this file contain??
This..
=========================================
/*
* Error codes
*/
#define EPERM 1
#define ENOENT 2
#define ESRCH 3
#define EINTR 4
#define EIO 5
#define ENXIO 6
#define E2BIG 7
#define ENOEXEC 8
#define EBADF 9
#define ECHILD 10
#define EAGAIN 11
#define ENOMEM 12
#define EACCES 13
#define EFAULT 14
#define ENOTBLK 15
#define EBUSY 16
#define EEXIST 17
#define EXDEV 18
#define ENODEV 19
#define ENOTDIR 20
#define EISDIR 21
#define EINVAL 22
#define ENFILE 23
#define EMFILE 24
#define ENOTTY 25
#define ETXTBSY 26
#define EFBIG 27
#define ENOSPC 28
#define ESPIPE 29
#define EROFS 30
#define EMLINK 31
#define EPIPE 32
/* math software */
#define EDOM 33
#define ERANGE 34
======================================
Hmm, looks a lot like the other errno.h files..
(Once you trace the includes for different architectures that Linux uses,
etc..)
Yes, this file was released by Caldera back in 1999..
(Of course, I had a copy in 1978, but we won't go into that.
It's a 7 track 800 bpi reel tape, that I couldn't find a way to read now if I
wanted to!! GRIN!)
Steve[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tcfelker on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 04:01 PM EST |
I figured I'd make it simple and look at one file, errno.h.
It's been split up and moved several times, but the errnos in recent kernels
have comments giving the strerror() string, while the errno.h in linux-0.01 did
not.
This change was made between linux-0.96c and linux-0.97. The old version is
unchanged since 0.01 and says it was copied from minix. The new version with
the error string comments doesn't say where it's from.
A shiny nickel to whoever can figure out where the new version came from.
Should I email Linus or the LKML?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- errno.h source? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 04:19 PM EST
- errno.h source? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 04:20 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: tyche on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 04:02 PM EST |
I'm not at home right now, so I can go digging for the actual document, but I
remember reading a "README" in the Fedora source files (after
upgrading from RedHat) that discussed this whole "hooks into the
kernal" thing between Mr. Torvalds and (I think)and Mr. Hellwig. I'll go
find it when I get home (about an hour and three-quarters) if anyone is
interested and/or if no one has referenced this elsewhere.
Craig
(Tyche)
---
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of
knowledge."
Stephen Hawking[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 04:14 PM EST |
I think I can see SCO's argument (just about).
They are saying that POSIX defines the implementation names, but it is their
implementation that has been copied.
For instance, the POSIX standard specifies that ENOENT needs to be defined an
integer in errno.h, but does not define what it is.
Both Unix and Linux define it as 2, and SCO is claiming that that is because the
Linux guys copied it from SCO.
However, this does not hold water, because these numbers are documented, without
copyright notices, in the man pages, including the OpenServer ones (enter
"man S Intro" on OpenServer and page down, you will see ENOENT
defined as 2....).
It would make sense for the early Linux developers to use publically available
POSIX deffinitions to maintain a consistancy, in fact it could be argued it
would be irresponsible if they did not.
All the other definitions of the .h files are documented in the man pages as
well. The comments are as in the POSIX standard as on www.opengroup.com.
Also - when compiling a C program, arguably none of the .h files gets
incorporated into the binary - with the possible exception of the macros. All
the .h files do is to validate interface APIs (as per Posix standard) and to
associate numbers with names (ENOENT is 2 and so on). Any macros in there would
be trivial and obvious and difficult to proove that it were not copied, so SCO
has no business going after the people who use binaries, just those who compile
code.
The other thing is that this is the first time I know of someone going after
copyright claims based on .h files, these are relatively trivial and can be
replaced in probably a couple of days - though it would be a pain because all
binaries would need to be recompiled with the new headers. However, I believe
that is accademic as SCO has no proprietary claims on the header files in Linux
as far as I can tell. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: davep on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 05:43 PM EST |
A couple of people have picked these apart on the LKML. Linus's comments are
here:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.2/1241.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 04:18 AM EST |
Someone said this isn't a takedown notice and I'd agree that even if it were
intended to be one it fails to meet the minimum requirements for identification
of infringing material.
But what kind of DMCA letter is it? Can someone give us a quick explanation of
what USC 1202 says?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
