decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
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?


  


SCO Sends DMCA Notices | 200 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

Only a Scrooge or a Grinch would send them out at this time of year!
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

Where's RedHat?
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

Gee, we expected SOMETHING, didn't we?
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

OT: Some good news
Authored by: cc on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:22 AM EST
DV D-Jon wins new legal victory

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

2 + 2 = 3 billion
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO's Goal is Evasion of the 1994 Settlement Agreement - California Must Fight!
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 | # ]

ABI? Is that Linux A.B.I?
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

Watch the financials, not the clowns!
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 | # ]

The blanket of the DMCA
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 | # ]

Backed Into A Corner
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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 | # ]

Injunction
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 | # ]

Starts clock ticking
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 | # ]

Reap the whirlwind
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

Get details of SCO's claim. Pin SCO down
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 | # ]

LWN now has the DMCA letter!
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

Counter-Notice
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 | # ]

Dumb question
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
SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

"Copied" files
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 | # ]

Header files
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
Previously released by AT&T, USL, etc.?
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 | # ]

Another abuse of DMCA?
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 | # ]

SCO Wins The Day
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

Most of these files are part of Open Group Unix Spec
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

FIPS
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
Most include files not copyrightable
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 | # ]

SCO Destroys its Customer Base
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 | # ]

is the DMCA retrospective?
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 | # ]

NOT SUBJECT TO DMCA TAKEDOWN -- ONLY LAWSUIT!
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 | # ]

SCO: "the Linux community was able to freely copy 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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

ABI modules - another contradiction
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 | # ]

Misdirection in Q3 conference now documentable
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 | # ]

SCO Dec 19 letter is balderdash
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:

  1. errno.h
  2. signal.h
  3. stat.h
  4. ctype.h,
  5. ctype.c
  6. ioctl.h, ioctls.h
  7. ipc.h
  8. acct.h
  9. a.out.h
  10. 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
SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

End users need not worry
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 | # ]

DMCA = Darl Mcbride Cash Advance!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 03:32 PM EST
Just had to say it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

Theory on DMCA....
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 | # ]

History of errno.h
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 | # ]

errno.h source?
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
SCO Sends DMCA Notices
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 | # ]

SCO's argument..
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 | # ]

Linus's response
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 | # ]

DMCA Question (takedown vs. 1202)
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )