|
USL - We Distributed UNIX 32V Code Without Copyright Notices |
|
Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 03:27 PM EST
|
Here is another document -- as text -- for our collection. It's dated 1992, USL's Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Second Set of Interrogatories [PDF], from the USL v. BSDi lawsuit. In it, USL stated clearly that it distributed Unix source code widely without copyright notices for years, back when doing so meant you were risking losing your copyright, and were relying upon trade secret instead. This is relevant to the SCO litigation, because while SCO and Novell are in the court arguing over which of them owns the copyright on UNIX, there are deeper questions that will have to be answered eventually. One of them is: what copyrights did USL possess to pass on to Novell in the first place?
Berkeley Software Design, Inc., raised this very issue in its Opposition to USL's Motion for Preliminary Injunction:
"Unable to find significant similarities in the actual code, USL points
to these same standard file names and mnemonics as evidence of
copyright infringement, even though USL forfeited any copyright
protection in the 32V code long ago, by making it widely available
with no copyright notice. Even if USL had not forfeited copyright
protection in the 32V code, it could not show copyright
infringement, since mnemonics and common industry standards are
not protectible under copyright law and their use does not prove
illicit copying.
"As for the actual code, out of the over 1.5 million lines of code in
BSD/386, USL's expert relies solely on a few lines interspersed in
two functions, ignoring the fact that instructions on how to
implement those functions are contained in various textbooks. . . . Given
the specific instructions available in such books, the trivial
similarities relied on by USL are to be expected and prove neither
copying nor use of the 32V code.
"In short, with this motion, USL seeks to exclude a legitimate
competitor from the marketplace by attempting to invoke a
nonexistent copyright, by relying on commonly used industry
standards as evidence of copying, and by falsely claiming generally
known information as its trade secrets."
Their allegation is supported by USL's answers to these interrogatories. Remember that the BSDi case was about an educational license, not a commercial one, such as the kind IBM signed. Note USL's answers to interrogatories numbers 5 and 6: "Interrogatory No. 5 -- State whether or not the UNIX/32V source code, or any portion thereof, has at any time been distributed by AT&T or USL, pursuant to license or otherwise, without a copyright notice. "Response No. 5 -- AT&T and USL have distributed the UNIX/32V source code without a copyright notice pursuant to the license agreements referenced in response to Interrogatory No. 1, all of which restrict the licensee's right to make copies of such source code and limit the distribution of derivative works thereof to other UNIX/32V source code licensees. "Interrogatory No. 6 -- Identify each file in the UNIX/32V source code that at any time has been distributed, whether pursuant to a license or otherwise, without a copyright notice. "Response No. 6 -- All files contained within the UNIX 32V source code have been distributed by AT&T or USL without a copyright notice pursuant to the license agreements referenced in response to Interrogatory No. 1, all of which restrict the licensee's right to make copies of such source code and limit the distribution of derivative works thereof to other UNIX/32V source code licensees." By 1992, when this document was written, the copyright laws had changed, but earlier, before 1989, when the distribution of this source code was admittedly done, it was under previous copyright law. You can read up on that on the US Copyright Office's Copyright Basics page:
"Copies of works published before March 1, 1989, must bear the notice or risk loss of copyright protection. . . . Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989." In his ruling on USL's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the judge said that USL had "failed to demonstrate a likelihood that it can successfully defend its copyright in 32V":
"1. Copyright Infringement
"Plaintiff claims that BSDI has violated Plaintiff's
copyright in the UNIX source code and, unless I enjoin further
violations, BSDI's continuing violations will irreparably harm
Plaintiff. The first factor to be considered is whether Plaintiff
has a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits of this
claim.
"In order to prevail, Plaintiff must prove that it has a
valid copyright in the UNIX code. Plaintiff's chief difficulty
here is the 'Publication doctrine.' The publication doctrine
denies copyright protection to works which the copyright owner
'publishes,' unless the owner has properly affixed a notice of
copyright to the published work. This doctrine has suffered steady
erosion over the years, and it now applies in full force only for
works published prior to January 1, 1978. For works such as 32V
(published in 1978), which were published after that date but
before March 1, 1989, the doctrine is subject to the escape
provisions of 17 U.S.C. 405(a) and the common-law 'limited
publication rule.' For works published after March 1, 1989, the
publication doctrine has been eliminated by the Berne Convention
Implementation Act, 102 Stat. 2857 (1988).
"Because Plaintiff copyrighted 32V in 1992, Plaintiff
benefits from a statutory presumption of validity and BSDI has the
burden of proving otherwise. Williams Electronics, Inc. v. Arctic
International, Inc., 685 F.2d 870, 873 (3rd Cir. 1982). BSDI seeks
to carry this burden by proving that AT&T and Plaintiff have widely
published 32V without proper notice.
"Publication is defined as:
the distribution of copies or phono records of a work
to the public by sale or other transfer of
ownership, or by rental lease or lending. The
offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a
group of persons for purposes of further
distribution, public performance, or public display,
constitutes publication. A public performance or
display of a work does not of itself constitute
publication.
"17 U.S.C. 101. Version 32V source code has now been distributed,
without notice, to literally thousands of licensees.
Consequently, Plaintiff can have no valid copyright on 32V unless
it can fit within one of the statutory or common law escape
provisions.
"The three statutory escape provisions are listed in
section 405(a). These provisions relieve a copyright owner from
the harsh consequences of noticeless publication if the owner
(i) omitted the notice from a 'relatively small number of copies;'
(ii) registers the work within five years of publication, and then
makes a 'reasonable effort' to add notices to the noticeless copies
already distributed; or (iii) proves that a third party omitted,
notice in violation of an express agreement in writing 17 U.S.C
405(a)(1)-(3).
"Plaintiff cannot avail itself of any of these provisions.
Notice was omitted from thousands of copies of 32V; no contractual
agreements require the licensees to affix notice;
Plaintiff failed to copyright 32V until 1992, well over five years
after 32V was published; and Plaintiff has not yet made reasonable
efforts to add notices to the many noticeless publications of 32V.
Consequently, Plaintiff must try to fit within the common-law
doctrine of limited publication.
"Under the common-law doctrine of limited publication, a
publication will not divest an author of copyright protection if
the author 'communicates the contents of a manuscript to a
definitely selected group and for a limited purpose, and without
the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution or sale. . .'
Rexnord, Inc. v. Modern Handling Systems, Inc., 379 F. Supp. 1190,
1197 (D. Del. 1974) (quoting White v. Kimmell, 193 F.2d 744, 746-47
(9th Cir. 1952), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 957 (1952); see also
American Visuals Corq. v. Holland, 239 F.2d 740, 744 (2d Cir. 1956)
(quoting White v. Kimmell). There is some question as to whether
the doctrine of limited publication survived the 1976 amendments to
federal copyright law, but the weight of authority holds that it
has. See Nimmer on Copyrights, 4.13[B](1992), and the cases
cited therein ('the doctrine of limited publication continues under
the current Act').
"For the present dispute, the key criterion is that the
alleged copyright owner must only have distributed the works to a
'Selected group.' To qualify as a 'selected group,' those receiving
the work must be more than just customers self-selected by their
desire to purchase the work. Otherwise, 'all the purchasers of the
work' would qualify as a 'selected group,' and all publications
would be limited publications. For example, if a programmer sells
software to anyone willing to meet the asking price, then the
programmer can hardly be said to have communicated the work to a
selected group. See Brown v. Tabb, 714 F.2d 1088, 1092 (11th Cir.
1983) (the group containing all of the potential purchasers of a
jingle was not a 'selected group'); Academy of Motion Picture Arts
v. Creative House Promotions, 944 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (Oscar
winners are not a selected group because Plaintiff did not
distribute its Oscars generally to the public). Situations where
courts have found selected groups include distribution of
manuscripts by authors to a small collection of friends; of floor
plans to contractors so they can prepare bids; of advance copies of
works to colleagues for criticism or review; of samples to
potential customers; and of promotional material to dealers.
Nimmer on copyright, 4.13[A] (1992).
"As the above examples suggest, the traditional scope of
the limited publication doctrine is narrow. But courts have shown
a tendency to expand the scope of this doctrine when applying it to
computer products. See Nimmer on copyright, 4.13[A][1], [2).
For example, several courts have declined to find a publication
where a copyright owner has communicated support materials to
customers buying computers. One such case is Hubco Data Products
Corp. v. Management Assistance Inc., 219 U.S.P.Q. 450 (D. Idaho
1983), where the court faced the issue of whether the plaintiff
computer manufacturer had published the operating system
distributed with its computers. The computers (complete with
operating systems) apparently were available to anyone willing to
pay their price, but the court none the less found only a limited
publication of the operating system. The court reasoned that the
'operating systems were only offered to owners of [plaintiffs)
computers.' Id. at 455. See also Data General Corp. v. Digital
Computer Controls, Inc., 188 U.S.P.Q. 276 (Del. Ch. 1975)
(schematic drawings were the subject of a limited publication
because they were only distributed to those who bought computers).
"The limited-publication variations endorsed in Hubco and
Data General, even if valid, are of no help to Plaintiff here.
Version 32V was not distributed as an ancillary communication
supporting the sale of a computer -- 32V was the actual product
itself. Consequently, the only question is whether AT&T and
Plaintiff limited 32V's distribution or offered it to whomever
could pay.
"Plaintiff argues that it has only distributed 32V to
three select groups of licensees: educational organizations, U.S.
government agencies, and carefully-screened corporate entities.
Although the former two groups could conceivably qualify as
'selected,' the latter can qualify only if the screening process is
suitably restrictive. According to depositions of Plaintiff's
personnel, the screening includes investigating the kind of code a
potential customer seeks (source or binary); detailed information
about the nature of the customer's business; the customer's
financial ability to pay; and whether the customer is in a country
that protects trade secrets. Plaintiff needs all of this
information to assess three features of its prospective customers:
which product is best for the customer, whether the customer can
pay, and whether the customer will take good care of Plaintiff's
intellectual property, (Kennedy Decl., Ex. C at 1622, Ex. D at
111-12; Pl.'s Reply Br. at 10.)
"Even accepting this description of Plaintiff's screening
process as true, it is hard to see how the screening would yield a
selected group of corporations within the meaning of the doctrine
of limited publication. Plaintiff essentially seeks what any
lessor of property seeks: someone who will take good care of the
property and pay the bills as they fall due. If this were enough
to create a selected group, then practically anyone who leased
property would belong to a selected group.
"The copyright laws in effect prior to 1989 do not allow
such expansive protection against the consequences of noticeless
publication. As quoted above, publication includes distributing
copies by 'renting, leasing, or lending.' 17 U.S.C. 101. Under
Plaintiff's construction of the doctrine of limited publication,
'renting, leasing, or lending' would not constitute publication
whenever the owner of the copyright screened out irresponsible
customers. It seems unlikely that Congress drafted this section
with this purpose in mind.
"Consequently, I find that Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate a likelihood that it can successfully defend its
copyright in 32V. Plaintiff's claims of copyright violations are
not a basis for injunctive relief." As the judge said, there are consequences of noticeless publication. If USL could not prove it owned the copyrights back then, what exactly did Novell get from USL when it purchased the code from USL? And what copyrights, if any, could SCO claim even if it were to be judged the rightful owner of the copyrights? The next question would have to be, which copyrights? Which code?
Now, as we know, there was ultimately a settlement between the parties, but I notice the judge went on to say this, and remember he is talking about the educational license that had the methods language in it:
"The 00089 agreement permits the Regents to create derivatives of UNIX and, to the extent that the derivatives are free of proprietary information, to distribute them without restriction."
In the Complaint in the Regents of the University of California v. Unix System Laboratories, Inc. case, Index Number 717864-3, filed in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, which I now have a paper copy of, there are some allegations that add to the confusion.
The Complaint stated that as much as 50% of System V Release 4 back then was code licensed from BSD.
Here's paragraph 10 from the complaint:
"10. Substantial portions (perhaps as much as 50%) of
the current version of USL's Unix Operating System, 'System V, Release
4,' is comprised of the University's BSD code. USL has paid no
royalties for its use of the University's BSD software, although USL
currently licenses its Unix Operating System for approximately
$200,000. Although USL itself states, the Unix Operating System has
become 'one of the most highly regarded computer systems in the world,'
this is largely the result of BSD software developed by the University
and its contributors which has been incorporated into USL's Unix
Operating System. The only form of compensation the University
required USL to provide (other than the nominal license fee) was credit
and recognition to the University for its valuable software and related
documentation. USL failed to provide the University with its due
credit and recognition under the applicable license agreements."
Novell, after it purchased it, had the right to distribute 100% of System V, thanks to the expansive BSD License. But Novell didn't own the full copyright on 100 percent of the code, and it can only transfer what it owns. So even if SCO obtained everything Novell had in its power to transfer, which it asserts it never did, there is no way any court could assign all the copyrights for System V to SCO, no matter how you interpret the Agreement as amended. USL itself never owned all of System V, and that's where the chain started.
The University and AT&T entered into a written license agreement in 1986 "for the use of the University's 4.2 BSD and 4.3 BSD computer programs and documentation" and then again in 1989, "for the use of the University's 4.3 BSD-Tahoe computer programs and documentation. . . . made available to AT&T under the same terms and conditions set forth in the March 4, 1986 agreement," according to the Complaint's paragraphs 3 and 4. That latter agreement can be found here. It mentions that others wrote some of BSD in addition to the University: "WHEREAS, 4.2 BSD and 4.3 BSD include some material contributed by persons other than the agents, officers, and employees of the University
(hereinafter 'Other Contributors') and these Other Contributors are
identified within 4.2 BSD and 4.3 BSD;. . . "4. Title. AT&T agrees that 4.2 BSD and 4.3 BSD contain proprietary software belonging to the University. AT&T shall have no right, title or
interest in or to such proprietary software except as expressly set
forth in this Agreement.
"5. AT&T Proprietary Software. The University agrees that 4.2 BSD and 4.3
BSD contain proprietary software belonging to AT&T and licensed by AT&T
as 32V."
As you see, it's complex.
Paragraph 5 says "AT&T licensed, for itself and its subsidiaries, the right to use and sublicense the University's BSD software for, among other purposes, the development of AT&T's (and subsequently USL's) commercial Unix Operating System. The price charged by the University for a license to use its BSD software and documentation was, and is, a nominal fee to cover the cost of production and shipping of the software and related documentation. The University has never licensed its BSD software for profit."
The Complaint goes on to relate that the BSD license back then required that credit be given for their use of the University's code, and that AT&T and its subsidiaries were granted "the right to sublicense 4.2 BSD, 4.3 BSD, and 4.3 BSD-Tahoe to third parties as long as AT&T and its subsidiaries required its sublicensees to comply with the 'Proper Credit and Recognition' obligations contained in Paragraph 8 of the BSD Agreements." Here is paragraph 8: "8. Proper Credit and Recognition. In the use of any part of 4.2 BSD and
4.3 BSD, AT&T will give appropriate credit to the University and the
Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences Department at the Berkeley
Campus of the University of California and to the Other Contributors for
their roles in its development and will require sublicensees to give
such credit. If AT&T is providing documentation similar to that which is
provided with 4.2 BSD and 4.3 BSD, notices similar to those included in
that documentation suffice to satisfy this requirement. If AT&T is
providing new documentation, this requirement will be satisfied if each
document includes the following statement: "This software and
documentaiton is based in part on the Fourth Berkeley Software
Distribution under license from The Regents of the University of
California. We acknowledge fhe following individuals and institutions
for their role in its development: [insert names of individuals and
institutions which appear in the documentation provided to AT&T as part
of 4.2 BSD and 4.3 BSD for those portions of said Distribution used by
AT&T]".
That failed to happen, according to the Complaint:
"The University is informed and believes that USL has sublicensed 4.2 BSD, 4.3 BSD and/or 4.3 BSD-Tahoe to sublicensees, including, but not limited to Silicon Graphics, Inc., the Santa Cruz Organization, Inc. and Intel Corporation, who have failed to give the University proper credit and recognition in the following documentation as required under Paragraph 8 of the BSD Agreements: Silicon Graphics' 'IRIX User's Reference Manual', Santa Cruz Operation's 'Open Desktop Administrator's Guide', and Intel's 'IBCS2'."
This is in paragraph 10 of the complaint. Then there is a list of other documentation that failed to give proper credit in paragraphs 15 and 16. The latter reads: "USL has failed to include the University's copyright notice in System V, Release 4 and related documentation."
On that basis, the University sought an order terminating the BSD agreements or that USL be compelled to provide proper recognition. The case was settled, but it leaves in the air the assertion that a large portion of System V, Release 4, as much as 50% of the code, never belonged to USL to begin with, that AT&T had to take a license to use the BSD code back then, and to sublicense it, which is proof that they didn't own the copyrights on the BSD code, and that there was a failure to abide by the terms of the license.
So, what about the settlement? Here is Marshall Kirk McKusick, who was a participant in that litigation, on the way it worked out from his perspective:
"At the preliminary hearing for the injunction, BSDI contended that they were simply using the sources being freely distributed by the University of California plus six additional files. They were willing to discuss the content of any of the six added files, but did not believe that they should be held responsible for the files being distributed by the University of California. The judge agreed with BSDI's argument and told USL that they would have to restate their complaint based solely on the six files or he would dismiss it. Recognizing that they would have a hard time making a case from just the six files, USL decided to refile the suit against both BSDI and the University of California. As before, USL requested an injunction on the shipping of Networking Release 2 from the University and on the BSDI products. . . .
"In December 1992, Dickinson R. Debevoise, a United States District Judge in New Jersey, heard the arguments for the injunction. Although judges usually rule on injunction requests immediately, he decided to take it under advisement. On a Friday about six weeks later, he issued a forty-page opinion in which he denied the injunction and threw out all but two of the complaints. The remaining two complaints were narrowed to recent copyrights and the possibility of the loss of trade secrets. He also suggested that the matter should be heard in a state court system before being heard in the federal court system.
"The University of California took the hint and rushed into California state court the following Monday morning with a counter-suit against USL. . . .The University's suit claimed that USL had failed in their obligation to provide due credit to the University for the use of BSD code in System V as required by the license that they had signed with the University. . . .Soon after the filing in state court, USL was bought from AT&T by Novell. The CEO of Novell, Ray Noorda, stated publicly that he would rather compete in the marketplace than in court. By the summer of 1993, settlement talks had started. Unfortunately, the two sides had dug in so deep that the talks proceed slowly. With some further prodding by Ray Noorda on the USL side, many of the sticking points were removed and a settlement was finally reached in January 1994. The result was that three files were removed from the 18,000 that made up Networking Release 2, and a number of minor changes were made to other files. In addition, the University agreed to add USL copyrights to about 70 files, although those files continued to be freely redistributed.
"The lawsuit settlement also stipulated that USL would not sue any organization using 4.4BSD-Lite as the base for their system. . . . .Today, the open source software movement is gaining increased attention and respect. Although the Linux system is perhaps the most well-known, about half of the utilities that it comes packaged with are drawn from the BSD distribution. The Linux distributions are also heavily dependent on the complier, debuggers, and other development tools written by the Free Software Foundation. Collectively, the CSRG, the Free Software Foundation, and the Linux kernel developers have created the platform from which the Open Source software movement has been launched. I am proud to have had the opportunity to help pioneer the Open Source software movement. I look forward to the day when it becomes the preferred way to develop and buy software for users and companies everywhere."
But, you may say, no doubt there was further code developed after they licensed the BSD code. True, and that might affect the percentage, but does that not raise an issue regarding derivative code? The University's license allowed for modification of the code, but it doesn't directly speak to the question of ownership of the derivative code, that I could see. Could SCO then be subject to a charge that their code since 1986 is "derivative" of BSD? One thing is for sure. They would have to prove that any "infringement" was an infringement of their code, not BSD's, and not derivatives of BSD's. This could get sticky.
Even if they were to prevail over Novell, therefore, on ownership of the copyrights, it seems to me they still would have a huge mountain to cross, first to demonstrate that any allegedly infringing code is infringing their code, not BSD's, and second, perhaps having to demonstrate that their code isn't derivative itself. Separating out exactly who owned what in this pile of ownership spaghetti is going to be difficult at best.
Clearly, USL had a bad copyright ownership case, and consequently so would any successor in interest. But what about the settlement? How did it affect copyrights? A private settlement affects the parties to the settlement, but what exactly did they agree to? If it only affects the parties, the information in these documents seems to indicate the position that those outside of the settlement would be in. In other words, it would seem that if SCO were to win ownership rights and then sued someone, particularly a non-licensee, if they even could, any defense would be pretty much the same as BSDi's, that SCO lost their copyright when USL distributed without copyright notices. As for the parties, I'll write about how the settlement agreement affected them next. You can consider this article as an introduction to the next one.
The paper materials I received included the Request for Dismissal form. The University, the plaintiff, requested the case be dismissed on February 9, 1994, with prejudice, and the Request for Dismissal is stamped, "Endorsed, Filed, Dismissal Entered February 15, 1994."
Here, then, are USL's Responses to BSDi's Second Interrogatories as text, thanks to Steve Martin. He notes that the original has many OCR issues, and some typos, so check the original before assuming a mistake on our end.
*************************************
Michael D. Loprete (MDL1695)
CRUMMY, DEL DEO, DOLAN,
GRIFFINGER & VECCHIONE, P.C.
[address]
[phone]
George L. Graff
James. W. Kennedy
Charles B. Ortner
MILGRIM THOMAJAN & LEE P.C.
[address]
[phone]
Sanford Tannenbaum
Executive Vice President and General Counsel
UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
[address]
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
-against-
BERKELEY SOFTWARE DESIGN, INC. and
certain named individuals in their
capacity as THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendants.
|
Civil Action No. 92-1667 (DRD)
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE
TO DEFENDANT'S SECOND
SET OF INTERROGATORIES
|
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Plaintiff UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. ("USL")
responds to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories as follows:
General Objections
-
USL objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it
seeks information that is beyond the permissible scope of
discovery allowable under Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure by seeking information that is not relevant or
reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of relevant matter.
-
USL objects to each Interrogatory to the extent
that it seeks to impose upon USL obligations beyond those imposed
by Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including any
obligation to provide information not within the possession,
custody or control of USL.
-
USL objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it
seeks discovery of information that is protected from discovery
by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product immunity or
other applicable privileges.
-
USL objects to each Interrogatory to the extent
that it seeks discovery of information that is protected from
discovery as matter prepared in anticipation of litigation or for
trial on the ground that such matter may be discoverable only
upon satisfaction of Rule 26(b)(3), which has not been satisfied.
-
USL objects to each Interrogatory to the extent
that it seeks the discovery of facts known and opinion held by
experts, on the ground that such matter is discoverable only upon
satisfaction of Rule 26(b)(4), which has not been satisfied.
-
USL objects to each Interrogatory to the extent
that it seeks discovery of USL's trade secrets or other
confidential information, unless and until an appropriate
Protective Order has been agreed to by the parties and/or
endorsed by the Court.
Specific Objections and Responses
Subject to the foregoing General Objections, USL
responds to the Interrogatories as follows:
Interrogatory No. 1
Identify all persons or entities who have been licensed
at any time by Western Electric, AT&T or USL under the UNIX/32V
source code.
Response No. 1
USL maintains original license agreements and related
correspondence at a central repository located in Greensboro,
N.C., which generally contains correspondence related to
licenses, amendments or modifications to such licenses and
correspondence with licensees. Pursuant to Rule 33(c), USL will
provide access to nonprivileged repository documents for
inspection and copying, from which the answer to this
interrogatory may be obtained or derived. Included among such
documentation are electronic data bases which comprise USL's
best, although incomplete, list of such information, and which
are known to contain inaccuracies. USL will make such data bases
available at the same time in accordance with Rule 33(c).
Interrogatory No. 2
Identify all persons or entities who have had access or
a right of access, under a license or otherwise, to the UNIX/32V
source code.
Response No. 2
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, USL
objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome
in that it seeks the identity of "all" persons or entities who
have had access to the UNIX/32V source code, and to the extent
that it seeks information which is not available to USL within
the meaning of Rule 33(a).
Subject to the foregoing, the only persons or entities
having a right of access to the UNIX/32V source code are:
(1) employees of USL or its, predecessor, AT&T or
subsidiaries thereof,
(2) counsel for USL in this action,
(3) Professor John Carson, who has been retained by
USL to provide consulting services in relation to this action,
and
(4) those entities or persons authorized to have such
access by the license agreements, and under the terms of such
agreements, which shall be made available as described in the
response to Interrogatory No. 1 and the Fourth Request for
Documents, Item No. 1.
To the extent that the BSD/386 Source source code,
Networking Release 2 source code or other source code developed
or distributed without license from USL or its predecessor, AT&T,
are based upon, copied from or derived from UNIX/32V source code,
including the methods or concepts embodied therein, all persons
with access to the BSD/386 Source source code, Networking Release
2 source code or such other source code have had access without
the authorization of USL or AT&T to the UNIX/32V source code.
Interrogatory No. 3
Identify all persons or entities who have been licensed
at any time by Western Electric, AT&T or USL under the UNIX
System III source code.
Reponse No. 3
USL maintains original license agreements and related
correspondence at a central repository located in Greensboro,
N.C., which generally contains correspondence related to
licenses, amendments, or modifications to such licenses and
correspondence with licensees. Pursuant to Rule 33(c), USL will
provide access to nonprivileged repository documents for
inspection and copying, from which the answer to this
interrogatory may be obtained or derived. Included among such
documentation are electronic data bases which comprise USL's
best, although incomplete, list of such information, and which
are known to contain inaccuracies. USL will make such data bases
available at the same time in accordance with Rule 33(c).
Interrogatory No. 4
Identify all persons or entities who have had access or
a right to access, under a license or otherwise, to the UNIX
System III source code.
Response No. 4
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, USL
objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome
in that it seeks the identity of "all" persons or entities who
have had access to the UNIX System III source code, and to the
extent that it seeks information which is not available to USL
within the meaning of Rule 33(a).
Subject to the foregoing, the only persons or entities
who have a right of access to the UNIX System III source code are:
(1) employees of USL or its, predecessor, AT&T and
subsidiaries thereof,
(2) counsel for USL in this action,
(3) Professor John Carson, who has been retained by
USL to provide consulting services in relation to this action,
and
(4) those entities or persons authorized to have such
access pursuant to license or other agreements, and under the
terms of such agreements, which shall be made available as
described in the response to Interrogatory No. 1 and the Fourth
Request for Documents, Item No. 1.
To the extent that the BSD/386 Source source code,
Networking Release 2 source code or other source code developed
or distributed without license from USL or its predecessor is
based upon, copied from or derived from UNIX System III
source code, including the methods or concepts embodied therein,
all persons with access to the BSD/386 Source source code,
Networking Release 2 source code or such other source code had
access without the authorization of USL or AT&T to the UNIX
System III source code.
Interrogatory No. 5
State whether or not the UNIX/32V source code, or any
portion thereof, has at any time been distributed by AT&T or USL,
pursuant to license or otherwise, without a copyright notice.
Response No. 5
AT&T and USL have distributed the UNIX/32V source code
without a copyright notice pursuant to the license agreements
referenced in response to Interrogatory No. 1, all of which
restrict the licensee's right to make copies of such source code
and limit the distribution of derivative works thereof to other
UNIX/32V source code licensees.
Interrogatory No. 6
Identify each file in the UNIX/32V source code that at
any time has been distributed, whether pursuant to a license or
otherwise, without a copyright notice.
Response No. 6
All files contained within the UNIX/32V source code
have been distributed by AT&T or USL without a copyright notice
pursuant to the license agreements referenced in response to
Interrogatory No. 1, all of which restrict the licensee's right
to make copies of such source code and limit the distribution of
derivative works thereof to other UNIX/32V source code licensees.
Interrogatory No. 7
For each file identified in your response to
Interrogatory No. 6, state when each such distribution occurred,
and describe in detail the circumstances surrounding such
distribution, including, but not limited to, all entities and
persons to whom the distribution was made, or who had access to
the code distributed, and any restrictions imposed upon such
entities or persons.
Response No. 7
See Response No. 6. USL maintains original license
agreements and related correspondence at a central repository
located in Greensboro, N.C., which generally contains
correspondence related to licenses, amendments or modifications
to such licenses and correspondence with licensees. Pursuant to
Rule 33(c) USL will provide access to nonprivileged repository
documents for inspection and copying, from which the answer to
this interrogatory may be obtained or derived. Included among
such documentation are electronic data bases which comprise USL's
best, although incomplete, list of such information, and which
are known to contain inaccuracies. USL will also make such data
bases available the same time in accordance with Rule 33(c).
Dated: Newark, New Jersey
August 7, 1992
CRUMMY, DEL DEO, DOLAN,
GRIFFINGER & VECCHIONE, P.C.
By: ___[signature]____
Michael D. Loprete (MDL1695)
[address]
[phone]
and
VARET MARCUS & FINK P.C.
(formerly MILGRIM THOMAJAN & LEE P.C.)
By: ___[signature]____
George L. Graff
James W. Kennedy
Charles B. Ortner
[address]
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
Of Counsel:
Sanford Tannenbaum
Executive Vice President and General Counsel
UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
[address]
[phone]
|
|
Authored by: entre on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 04:25 PM EST |
Typos Here Please [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Stephen on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 04:29 PM EST |
Off topic posts, interesting URLs, etc., in this thread, please.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Eric Raymond corrects Sun. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 05:24 PM EST
- The Issue Of Authorial Attribution Will Not Go Away - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 03:42 AM EST
- The Issue Of Authorial Attribution Will Not Go Away - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 07:21 AM EST
- The Issue Of Authorial Attribution Will Not Go Away - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 07:52 AM EST
- The Issue Of Authorial Attribution Will Not Go Away - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 10:20 AM EST
- Note to br3n - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 10:33 AM EST
- Note to PJ - Authored by: darthaggie on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 10:47 AM EST
- Note to PJ - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 10:52 AM EST
- Note to PJ - Authored by: Jeff on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 11:09 AM EST
- Note to PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 11:27 AM EST
- Note to PJ - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 11:39 AM EST
- Note to PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 11:46 AM EST
- Note to PJ - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 11:52 AM EST
- Note to PJ - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 11:55 AM EST
- Note to PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 01:01 PM EST
- Note to PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 12:00 PM EST
- Sure, one can do that, - Authored by: Jadeclaw on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 12:54 PM EST
- Sure, one can do that, - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 12:57 PM EST
- Sure, one can do that, - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 01:10 PM EST
- Sure, one can do that, - Authored by: Jadeclaw on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 01:42 PM EST
- Sure, one can do that, - Authored by: Sesostris III on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 01:53 PM EST
- No, wait up - Authored by: sjgibbs on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 02:34 PM EST
- No, wait up - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 02:38 PM EST
- No, wait up - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 02:43 PM EST
- Sure, one can do that, - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 03:14 PM EST
- Sure, one can do that, - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 01:29 PM EST
- Note to PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 03:48 AM EST
- Note to PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 09:53 AM EST
- Note to PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 11:49 AM EST
- Note to PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 12:15 PM EST
- Note to PJ - Authored by: Kalak on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 07:19 PM EST
- Note to John Gabriel - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 30 2004 @ 03:52 AM EST
- Note to PJ - Authored by: codswallop on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 08:21 PM EST
- Note to PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 05:33 PM EST
- Easiest solution is to create a "booted barrel or a trash bin" ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 08:40 PM EST
- Add username field to message table - Authored by: rjamestaylor on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 06:02 PM EST
- Simple. - Authored by: Jadeclaw on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 11:31 AM EST
- Simple. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 11:36 AM EST
- Simple. - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 11:47 AM EST
- Simple. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 11:50 AM EST
- Simple. - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 12:02 PM EST
- Simple. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 12:09 PM EST
- Simple. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 12:21 PM EST
- Simple. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 02:05 PM EST
- Simple. - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 03:02 PM EST
- Simple. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 03:30 PM EST
- Simple. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 03:32 PM EST
- Simple. - Authored by: bcomber on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 03:47 AM EST
- Simple. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 04:05 PM EST
- Simple. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 05:28 PM EST
- Not Simple. - Authored by: stevem on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 08:29 PM EST
- Not Simple. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 02:05 PM EST
- Simple. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 02:00 PM EST
- Well, - Authored by: Jadeclaw on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 12:02 PM EST
- Well, - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 12:04 PM EST
- Cease and desist letter? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 01:10 PM EST
- The Issue Of Authorial Attribution Will Not Go Away - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 12:08 PM EST
- The Issue Of Authorial Attribution Will Not Go Away - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 02:19 PM EST
- The Issue Of Authorial Attribution Will Not Go Away - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 05:12 PM EST
- Lets call a spade a spade - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 12:37 PM EST
- Prior to the 'internet' written communication was considered permanent record - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 02:43 PM EST
- The Issue Of Authorial Attribution Will Not Go Away - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 02:51 PM EST
- The Issue Of Authorial Attribution Will Not Go Away - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 05:01 PM EST
- The Issue Of Authorial Attribution Will Not Go Away - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 07:29 PM EST
- This is what it would take. - Authored by: sjgibbs on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 08:05 PM EST
- The Issue Of Authorial Attribution Will Not Go Away - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 30 2004 @ 02:08 PM EST
- A few thoughts about that "affair"... - Authored by: domQ on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:02 PM EST
- Slight problem. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 12:52 PM EST
- Slight problem. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 01:20 PM EST
- Slight problem. - Authored by: PJ on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 08:14 AM EST
- Slight problem. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 05:12 PM EST
- Slight problem. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 07:27 PM EST
- Attribution.... are you guys *serious?* - Authored by: JamesHall on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 10:51 PM EST
- Easiest Attribution Fix...... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 30 2004 @ 09:09 AM EST
|
Authored by: jim Reiter on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 04:34 PM EST |
Real OT please [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 04:41 PM EST |
ok, so who owns it, if USL distributed it without (C), and a U.S court stated
that USL lost its (C) interests, that would mean its public domain without
restriction, and anyone trying to claim ownership of it would be fighting a
loosing battle.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JeffFromOhio on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 05:25 PM EST |
Ok, the title might sound dumb, but here's what I'm getting at. Ok, let's say
Unix 32V is in the public domain. Now, USL/Novell/SCO(original) did further
development on that code base. Now, the code that remained unchanged from
version to version would, of course, be public domain, but USL/Novell (and by
Darl's theory, SCO), could still claim valid copyrights (potentially) to any
code that was added or changed since that version, yes?
So, while I don't really think anything in Linux infringes Unix, I would think
there probably are still some valid copyrights in Unix, even if 32V is public
domain?
So, does this have any real significant impact on this case and the Novell/SCO
case? If so, what? Presumably, it limits the body of code to which copyright can
be claimed, so that IBM lawyers can point to sections of code in Unix and say
"*THAT* isn't copyrighted", I suppose. But, what is the 'big picture'
impact of all this on the current cases?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Umm, does it really matter? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 05:56 PM EST
- Umm, does it really matter? - Authored by: oldgreybeard on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 05:59 PM EST
- Umm, does it really matter? - Authored by: feldegast on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 06:06 PM EST
- Umm, does it really matter? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 06:45 PM EST
- Umm, does it really matter? - Authored by: PolR on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 06:45 PM EST
- Umm, it does really matter... - Authored by: Ed L. on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 07:05 PM EST
- remember the header files - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 09:16 PM EST
- Umm, does it really matter? - Authored by: jacks4u on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 09:23 PM EST
- Yes it affects the case - Authored by: TomWiles on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 01:06 AM EST
- Umm, does it really matter? - Authored by: The Cornishman on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 08:39 AM EST
- Impacts both IBM and Novell cases - Authored by: vortex on Monday, November 29 2004 @ 08:02 AM EST
|
Authored by: Prototrm on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 06:08 PM EST |
The SCO lawsuits were never really about the old Unix code, nor about what
rights they bought from Novel. They simply believe that their contract with IBM
gives them ownership of anything IBM added to AIX, although how they would
justify claiming ownership of any 3rd party code IBM may have added to AIX under
a different agreement or contract is another story.
All those Unix claims have been a smoke-screen to make their claims against
Linux look better in the media than they really are. It really does boil down to
a contract issue between SCO and IBM, and not copyrights. The rest is just a
distraction.
I'm certainly no lawyer (I don't even watch 'em on TV), but I wonder if the
agreement between SCO (AT&T's successor in interest) and IBM in and of
itself meets the mimimum criteria to transfer copyrights. Certainly, it seems a
lot more vague on the subject than the agreement of sale with Novell is. So,
correct me if I'm wrong, but even if IBM lost the contract issue, they wouldn't
have their copyrights transfered to SCO (they would, therefore, retain the right
to give the disputed code to Linux), they would merely have to pay SCO some
money. This wouldn't help IBM, but it would be good for Linux, since SCO would
need the copyrights to IBM's AIX code to sue Linux users.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 07:08 PM EST |
All your copyrights are belong to us! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: marbux on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 07:47 PM EST |
I am not an experienced practitioner of IP law except in the litigation of trade
secrecy claims raised as a defense to discovery and public records act cases.
However, I am really starting to wonder if there ever has been a conveyance of
Unix copyrights that is sufficient to meet the Copyright Act's "writing"
conveyance requirement.
PJ's latest article and quoted materials brought to
mind a concept of conveyance I'm more familiar with, a real estate "quit-claim
deed." A normal real estate deed contains, in relvant part, a warranty of
ownership (claimed right to convey), a detailed description (in metes and
bounds) of the real estate to be conveyed, and words of conveyance. If it later
turns out that the seller didn't really own the real estate, then the purchaser
can sue for breach of warranty.
A quit-claim deed lacks a warranty of
ownership, if I recall correctly. What the seller is selling is any potential
claims he or she has to the property, rather than title to the property. Without
title from any other source, the purchaser must establish the quit-claimer's
rights in the property in order to acquire title.
It seems more and more to
me that the conveyance of copyrights in Unix has been much more like a series of
quit-claim deeds than normal deeds. It's like, "I hereby sell you whatever
copyrights I have in Unix, but I don't know what those copyrights are." So maybe
there's a fundamental repeated failure to identify what is being conveyed (no
metes and bounds description), as well as no warranty that the seller actually
has any rights to convey.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that in real
estate property law, if my dim memory serves, the holder of a quit claim deed
has the burden of proving that the person from whom he or she acquired the
quit-claim deed actually owned the property. And that burden of proof would run
back in the succession of claimants until ownership can actually be established.
The documents PJ raised today suggest there can be no proof of ownership of
relevant Unix copyrights, that the proof is pure mush.
Again, I don't know
how it works for copyright conveyances, but I've developed a pretty good sense
over the years for who has the burden of proof in a given situation. If all SCO
has, at best, is the equivalent of a quit-claim deed to the relevant (and
apparently hypothetical) Unix copyrights, SCO's standing to assert ownership of
the copyrights may be an absolute barrier to success in its cases.
Any IP
lawyers around who could weigh in on this? --- Retired lawyer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 08:14 PM EST |
My understanding is that without the contributions of the University of
California, AT&T's UNIX would have been nothing more than pages and pages of
bug-ridden, and either non-operational or barely operational UNIX code.
Significantly to me, DARPA gave the contract to integrate TCP/IP into UNIX to UC
Berkeley, not AT&T.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: elcorton on Saturday, November 27 2004 @ 09:13 PM EST |
[W]hile SCO and Novell are in the court arguing over which of
them
owns the copyright on UNIX, there are deeper questions that will have
to be
answered eventually. One of them is: what copyrights did USL possess
to pass on
to Novell in the first place?
It's not clear that this question
will have to be answered eventually, at
least in any litigation now underway.
If SCO v Novell is dismissed on the
pending motion, summary judgment is entered
for IBM on the PSJ motion now
under advisement, SCO v Autozone is dropped, and
Red Hat v SCO is settled
or decided on grounds of non-infringement — what's
left?
I think Novell has never had much confidence in its title to any UNIX
copyrights acquired from USL. That's why the Novell-oldSCO APA was so
obscure.
It was deliberately crafted to obfuscate the issue of copyright
ownership.
***
I am neither an attorney nor a financial advisor. This
message contains
no legal or financial advice, nor is it an offer to provide
such advice. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AllParadox on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 12:15 AM EST |
I should know the answer off the top of my head on this one, but I do not.
Persons not a party to this suit are not bound by the findings or results. So
far, so good.
However, esentially, the judge here found that whatever copyrights existed,
except for a handful of files, have long since been released into the public
domain by USL or its predecessor.
Effectively, almost all of 32V is public domain.
Is this binding on USL and any successors in interest as against uninvolved
third parties? If not, why would they have to relitigate the same issues and
facts to get the same result?
---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AllParadox on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 12:32 AM EST |
Main posts in this thread may only be made by senior managers or attorneys for
"The SCO Group". Main posts must use the name and position of the
poster at "The SCO Group". Main posters must post in their official
capacity at "The SCO Group".
Sub-posts will also be allowed from non-"The SCO Group" employees or
attorneys. Sub-posts from persons not connected with "The SCO Group"
must be very polite, address other posters and the main poster with the
honorific "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Ms.", as
appropriate, use correct surnames, not call names or suggest or imply unethical
or illegal conduct by "The SCO Group" or its employees or attorneys.
This thread requires an extremely high standard of conduct and even slightly
marginal posts will be deleted.
P.J. says you must be on your very best behavior.
If you want to comment on this thread, please post under the off-topic thread,
"OT", found above.
---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Manfred Spraul on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 08:09 AM EST |
32V and older are not relevant for lawsuits:
- Judge Debevoise ruled that 32V is probably in the public domain due to lack of
copyright notices.
- Caldera granted a license to use 32V and older under a BSD style (i.e. with
advertising clause) license.
- Comparisons with Comparator and similar tools showed no copying from 32V to
Linux.
The first point is weak: Judge Debevoise's decision is only from a preliminary
injunction request and more importantly, the whole concept that a lack of
copyright notice voids the copyright is as far as I know US specific. It's
possible that the copyrights are still enforcible in the rest of the world.
The 2nd point limits what SCO can ask for: At most a few ads that clarify that
SCO's source code was used in Linux. Similar to what Berkeley got for the BSD
code use in SysV.
The 3nd point makes it clear that this is all moot: You can download 32V from
the historical unix archives and run a comparison. I haven't done it myself, but
I read that the only match is the well-discussed rmalloc / ate_malloc function
that were added accidentially by SGI [now removed]. Interestingly, SCO did not
include rmalloc in it's list of the 1.5 million infringing lines. I conclude
that SCO knows that the copyright to rmalloc is unenforcible.
The only thing they have are new features that were added in System V, for
example System V IPC. That's what they brought up in the 9th counterclaim
discussion. But it's moot, too: They quoted from linux/include/linux/sem.h the
following block:
struct seminfo {
int semmap;
int semmni;
int semmns;
int semmnu;
int semmsl;
int semopm;
int semume;
int semusz;
int semvmx;
int semaem;
};
This is an interface definition, as far as I know not copyrightable. They didn't
quote the immediately following lines:
#define SEMMNI 128 /* <= IPCMNI max # of semaphore identifiers
*/
#define SEMMSL 250 /* <= 8 000 max num of semaphores per id */
#define SEMMNS (SEMMNI*SEMMSL) /* <= INT_MAX max # of semaphores in system
*/
#define SEMOPM 32 /* <= 1 000 max num of ops per semop call */
#define SEMVMX 32767 /* <= 32767 semaphore maximum value */
#define SEMAEM SEMVMX /* adjust on exit max value */
/* unused */
#define SEMUME SEMOPM /* max num of undo entries per process */
#define SEMMNU SEMMNS /* num of undo structures system wide */
#define SEMMAP SEMMNS /* # of entries in semaphore map */
#define SEMUSZ 20 /* sizeof struct sem_undo */
These lines define the contents that is put into the interface structure. The
important thing is the "unused" statement - half of the interface is
actually dead and only provided for cross-platform compatibility, because the
Linux implementation is completely different.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: thorpie on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 08:19 AM EST |
It is worth considering Amendment 2 to the SCO-Novell Asset purchase
agreement. Novell seems to have covered themselves fairly well: Exempt
Assets include - "All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights
and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required
for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and
UnixWare technologies. However, in no event shall Novell be liable to SCO for
any claim brought by any third party pertaining to said copyrights and
trademarks."
In other words, Novell make no warranty that they own
anything, they transfer only the smallest possible portion of this (undefined)
owned material, and they make sure they are have no liability in case SCO think
they own something that they don't.
I would have to congratulate those
who worked in Novell's legal department, not a bad day's work in these two
sentences folks!
In hindsight one could possibly be persuaded that they
knew they owned nothing and were selling nothing for what, $100 million!
I love it!
--- The memories of a man in his old age are the
deeds of a man in his prime - Floyd, Pink [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 09:02 AM EST |
Assuming I understand this new information, why are companies like Sun,
Microsoft, and IBM even paying for licenses for Unix? Are they really willing to
pay large sums just because SCO claims to have the rights to all of Unix?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: marbux on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 01:12 PM EST |
The possibility remains that the settlement agreement in USL v. BSDi might
identify specific copyrights that are valid and allocate rights to them. So we
need to see the settlement agreement to put such issues to rest with confidence.
---
Retired lawyer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: El_Heffe on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 05:41 PM EST |
I like the name of the law firm: CRUMMY, DEL DEO, DOLAN,
GRIFFINGER & VECCHIONE, P.C.
A lawyer named 'Crummy'. How ironic.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|