|SCO and Red Hat Stipulate to Extend Time to Answer
Tuesday, August 26 2003 @ 12:04 PM EDT
A check with the courthouse indicates that both sides have agreed to allow SCO more time to answer Red Hat's Complaint. The Answer was due yesterday, but they've agreed to extend the time. This is very normal in a court case. Unfortunately, Delaware doesn't seem to be offering digital copies of the documents, unlike Utah's courts. But the page lists the following:
"8/26/03 STIPULATION to extend time for dfts to respond to complaint; with proposed order (ft)"
|SCO Site Down Today Again --
Tuesday, August 26 2003 @ 09:49 AM EDT
SCO Site Down Today Again --
But They Say it Wasn't an Attack
Whatever happened over the weekend, today's outage definitely was not an attack, according to a SCO spokesman:
"The Web site of embattled software maker The SCO Group Inc. was inaccessible again on Tuesday, fueling reports of another denial of service attack. . . .
"The outage prompted Netcraft to declare that SCO was again the target of a DoS attack. However, the outage was actually due to preventative measures taken by SCO and its hosting service to mitigate the effects of future attacks, according to company spokesman Marc Modersitzki."
As usual, the press isn't quite correct. Here's what Netcraft actually has up on its news site now:
"The SCO site was up for a few hours during business hours in Utah, but has since failed again. Many news sites carried the story that Eric Raymond had spoken to a group responsible for a Distributed Denial of Service attack on the www.sco.com site and that they agreed to stop. However it appears that this may have been a hoax, or they subsequently changed their minds, or another person decided to continue the attack."
Or, the one guess they didn't think of, SCO did it themselves. It's good that at least Netcraft made it clear that they were only guessing.
|SCO Sending Invoices
Tuesday, August 26 2003 @ 08:51 AM EDT
According to this report, SCO is mailing out invoices. If they actually use the mails this way, it raises a number of interesting issues in my mind, so I asked attorney Webster Knight what recourse a recipient might have. Obviously, he suggests you ask your own attorney with respects to any particular situation but he did think of something I hadn't, which isn't surprising, since he's a lawyer and I am not.
|SCO Customer Support Says Server Down for "Upgrade or Update or Something"
Monday, August 25 2003 @ 02:13 PM EDT
I suggest anyone interested in this story read through the comments from yesterday and today on Groklaw. Some really fine investigation has been done, including this report from John Gabriel, whose own sleuthing yesterday made him wonder about the report about an attack on SCO's servers, so he called SCO today:
"I called the 1(800)SCO-Unix number. First I talked to someone named Michael in Inside Sales. I thought that was odd and I must have hit the wrong button, but no big deal, maybe he can answer the question anyway. So, Michael tells me that they are working on it but he doesn't know what the problem is.
"Ok. I'm not satisfied with that answer, so I ask for tech support. 'They're working on it,' Michael says, 'they won't have the answer either.'
"I thank him for his time, and call again. This time I go into customer support. I ask for tech. support. The very nice woman on the phone says she will transfer me to Michael, in Inside Sales.
"'Wait," I say, 'I want technical support.'
"'Well, he is the technical support.'
"'Are you telling me you only have one tech support person?'
"'Do you have a contract with us?'
"'Well,' she says, 'Michael sells the tech support contracts.'
"'You can try the web.'
"'Your web site is down. Do you know why?'
"'Oh, they took it down for some sort of upgrade or update or something. If you give me your number, I can call you when it comes back up.'
"'No, thank you. I'll just keep checking it. Thanks.'"
This matches what ViaWest tech support indicated to me when I called them yesterday, and while it isn't proof positive, it's at least an indication that there may not be any attack on SCO's website. In time, all the evidence will all be out there. For now, you might like to take a look at the work Groklaw readers have done in the last two days, trying to figure out this mystery. Their best guess matches what the SCO Customer Support person told John Gabriel.
At any rate, as John reports, "So, whether or not it's true, that's definitely what they are telling people."
I'm sure there will be more information in the days ahead, but for now, let's just keep watching.
James Dornan just called them too and he was told the same thing:
"I have just called the 800-SCO-UNIX phone line, pressed option #5, and spoke with a 'Customer Care' person about The SCO Group's web site outage. The lady on the phone was cheerful and nice, all the best things you could expect from a person handling problems. She claimed that 'We upgraded the site this weekend, and are having problems getting it up come back up.' "
So, which story is true, do you suppose?
|SCO's MIT Mathematicians Go Poof
Monday, August 25 2003 @ 01:38 PM EDT
Wouldn't you know it? When it rains, it pours. Utah is experiencing flooding rains now too, it seems. What next? A plague of frogs? Seems the MIT mathematicians who allegedly verified the "stolen" lines of code aren't at MIT after all, and SCO is backpedalling, which is causing great puzzlement among some analysts and reporters, according to this story in The Tech:
"The company has so far declined to disclose most of these examples publicly. But it has said that three teams of experts have confirmed its assertions -- including one team of mathematicians from MIT.
" 'They said they hired three separate independent teams of experts to analyze their code, including one from MIT, and that the findings appear to corroborate the fact that the code had been taken from Unix and put into Linux,' said Laura DiDio, a senior analyst at The Yankee Group in Boston.
"'It was kind of weird, because they told me they had hired a team at MIT,' said Robert McMillan, a correspondent for the IDG News Service. 'And then they kind of backpedaled.'
". . . 'Chris Sontag told me that [they] had a group of mathemeticians "who were at MIT" working on this,' McMillan wrote in an e-mail after checking his notes. 'In subsequent interviews SCO said that these guys had been at MIT and were no longer there.'
"Paul Hatch, a SCO spokesman, wrote in a statement to The Tech , 'To clarify, the individuals reviewing the code had been involved with MIT labs in the past, but are not currently at MIT. Unfortunately, due to contractual obligations, we cannot specifically name the individuals.' "
Man, those pesky contracts SCO keeps signing that force them not to disclose anything. Maybe they need a new lawyer, who can explain to them that a contract means both sides get to set the terms.
Looks like Ms. DiDio may have cut her vacation off early and is finding this difficult to parse. How about analysts and reporters learn a big lesson from all this: that their job isn't to simply repeat what they are told without investigating and evaluating and asking the other side to comment on a story, so as to get some meat on the story's bones? A lot of them got snookered big time, and their excuse is, "they said"? Clippy tip to Ms. DiDio: It looks like you are trying to decide where to file this. Shall I put it in the "But He Promised He'd Love Me Forever" folder for you?
|Aberdeen's Claybrook: SCO Gambled and Lost --
Monday, August 25 2003 @ 03:56 AM EDT
Aberdeen's Claybrook: SCO Gambled and Lost --
Asks Linux Enterprise Users to Participate in a Survey
No more beating around the bush, Bill. Tell us what you really think about recent events:
"Where else to take a gamble but in Las Vegas? At its user conference there this week, SCO showed off pages of Linux code that it claims was copied from Unix System V. Among the viewers were resellers, part of an effort to pacify some resellers whose customers are concerned about what will happen to them if SCO should lose the lawsuit against IBM. . . .
"The news accounts I've read about this latest exhibition indicate that some resellers believe what they see, even if they don't have a clue what they are seeing. Proving that some of the code in Linux came from Unix System V is going to be a non-trivial exercise; at least one developer told me that BSD 4.1 and 4.2 code made its way into Unix System V while his company was transitioning to Unix System V. In addition, code that appears to be duplicated in Linux may indeed have come from BSD 4.1 or BSD 4.2 and not from System V."
That's just how it opens. He goes on to say that SCO's business was going down for the count long before IBM's "foray into the Linux business".
Also Aberdeen is undertaking a research initiative and would like your participation if you are an enterprise Linux user:
"Aberdeen repeatedly hears CIOs and IT managers asking the same questions -- Who is using Linux and when will it be ready for supporting my mission-critical applications. How much of what I hear is hype and how much is reality? Additionally, one important question hangs over the market: Just how fast is Linux replacing Unix?
"Aberdeen has launched a major research initiative seeking to answer these questions. Led by Bill Claybrook , Research Director, Linux and Open Source, Unix, and Grid Computing, this project will draw on the experiences and intentions of IT buyers and planners, and also examine the issue from the angle of enterprise Linux suppliers.
"Call to Action
"For enterprise Linux users: Aberdeen would like to talk with you to learn more about your experiences?[sic] To participate in this important study, please contact Bill Claybrook at 617-854-5256 or e-mail him at firstname.lastname@example.org ."
And then there is the Yankee Group. Ms. DiDio is still on vacation, until September 3, according to a reader. But here is a recent piece of work that Aberdeen still has up on its website with an August 25rd date:
"Corporations should be proactive in seeking indemnification. Review the indemnity clauses in all software contracts. Contact IBM and RedHat and demand answers on the issue of indemnification or contact the reseller directly to determine whether you are covered and to what extent. Many software vendors have a cap on liability coverage. If IBM and RedHat will not provide even baseline indemnification, the Yankee Group advises customers to contact SCO. It doesn't cost anything to have the conversation and determine the cost of their binary Linux license offering. Only after a company reviews its existing contracts and speaks to IBM, RedHat, and SCO will it be in a position to make an informed decision as to whether it should negotiate a license deal with SCO or stand firm and do nothing."
I hope she brought a laptop to the beach, so she can keep tabs on that tidal wave of scorn heading right at her. If she had any true friends at work, they'd have found a way to take that article down, in light of the code fiaSCO at SCOForum, don't you think?
I've got it. Maybe they could pretend they've been DDoS'd or something. Then they could unplug their servers from the internet over a weekend, remove all the evidence and pretend it never existed, and then blame the "attack" on the Linux community. Joke. Joke.
|What Is Going On in SCOLand?
Sunday, August 24 2003 @ 12:11 AM EDT
I noticed that Friday there was a big surge in volume of SCOX stocks traded, from an average volume of 358,749 to 526,910, and the price shot up 7.03% to $13.55, from an opening of $12.21. Why? Nothing good happened in the news that day, that's for sure, about SCO. Quite the opposite.
Today, I am reading that SCO's web site is down. A traceroute indicates it is not likely an attack, but more likely that they took their site down themselves. Sco.de is down too. Canopy.com is up and vultus.com is up. So their ISP isn't staggering under Sobig or whatever to the point that it is affecting everyone.
Then I noticed this:
"SCO Chief Financial Officer Robert Bench during a conference call said company insiders had sold a total of 117,000 shares during the most recent quarter, which it said was less than 1.5 percent of the stock owned by insiders.
"Bench said the share sales by some executives was done largely to cover the tax costs of restricted stock grants the company made them.
"SCO said two executive officers may sell up to 141,000 shares of its stock in the October ended quarter."
That's some ongoing tax bill. I wonder which two execs? And now this posting to pclinuxonline from someone claiming to work in the same building as SCO, allegedly working for another Canopy Group company:
"There was a lot of buzz about mergers a few weeks ago. It seemed that everyone was going to join into one large company called, you know it: SCO! That buzz ended yesterday. Now the talk, all over the group, is how to distance ourselves from SCO and Canopy. The mention of our company on Slashdot resulted in very negative feedback and two potential customers walking away. Other's got it even worse. I hear Trolltech spent most of the day on the phone smoothing things over with their customers. Upper management meetings were held all afternoon among the group's companies (I'm not privvy to those, but can guess the subject matter). Companies that were considering a merger with SCO (some as close as 5 days away) are now backpedalling as fast as they can."
I have absolutely no idea what is what with this story, and I'm reporting it saying take it for what it's worth. I don't normally report things I can't verify personally, but this is for a purpose. Somebody out there already knows what's happening in SCOLand, but the rest of us will just have to wait patiently. While we wait, though, this is a heads up that it's probably a good time to pay close attention to all clues.
Here is the analysis from the reader who ran the traceroute, minus the actual data, which is privately available. I did my own traceroutes to confirm:
"Just a note on SCO / Caldera websites being down. I thought I'd run some traceroutes to see where the problem is, and the results are quite interesting. . . .
"Analysis. Canopy, Caldera, and SCO, all have addresses that are within the same class C addressing range, respectively: XXX.XXX.140.120, XXX.XXX.140.125, XXX.XXX.140.112. [numbers masked, but they are identical. pj] While this makes it very possible that all three sites are served by the same machine, we can't prove that from this information. It is however, much more than likely that they are served from the same router.
"The next thing to note is that the route to SCO and Caldera both fail at the 14th step in the tracert. The last router that responds for each of them, at the 13th step, is den1-edge-01.tamerica.net (albeit from different ports). Canopy also passes through den1-edge-01.tamerica.net at the 13th step, but continues on to a router at viawest.com. From there, it passes through 2 more routers at ViaWest, and 3 routers at Center7.
"ViaWest and Center7 are both Canopy companies.
"On initial analysis, for any other company, a network manager/sys admin/networking consultant (such as me) would simply assume that there SCO/Caldera was having a problem with their ISP. The weird thing, though, is the presence of Canopy's IP address right *between* SCO's and Caldera's addresses.
"Assume that all 3 segments are served by the same router (no, we can't prove it from this data, but it's extremely likely). Canopy, in that case, should be experiencing experiencing problems too, if the site were under a DOS attack. In fact, anyone planning a DDOS attack would find it easier to just take out the whole address range that includes all 3 sites rather than focus on just the SCO/Caldera sites, for technical reasons alone. Never mind that they would want to target Canopy as well.
"Given all this, it is a pretty safe bet that SCO/Caldera has taken its websites down itself.
"Why? To protect themselves from a DDOS attack? No. Any decent firewall could take care of that for them."
Correction This sentence, he now tells me, was mistaken: "The weird thing, though, is the presence of Canopy's IP address right *between* SCO's and Caldera's addresses." He misread the numbers. Thanks for the correction.
|Ancient UNIX Released Under What Terms?
Saturday, August 23 2003 @ 12:02 PM EDT
On the issue of whether Caldera released the Ancient UNIX code under an
open source license or "only for noncommercial use", and only for 16-bit, as Sontag and
Stowell say, let's look at the evidence. There may be a reason for them to be confused on the first point, but no justification in the history for claiming 16-bit only.
First, here is what is being said:
"Blake Stowell, Director of Public
Relations for The SCO Group, said this week that SCO's 2002 letter that
released old UNIX versions did not offer free, open-source terms but
included a non-commercial use restriction. The company then was called
"'I do not dispute that this letter was distributed
and that Caldera at the time allowed 16-bit, non-UNIX System V code to
be contributed to Linux for non-commercial use', Stowell wrote in an
"The text of the letter, sent January 23,
2002 by Bill Broderick, Director of Licensing Services for Caldera, in
fact makes no mention of 'non-commercial use' restrictions, does not
include the words 'non-commercial use' anywhere and specifically
mentions '32-bit 32V Unix' as well as the 16-bit versions.
"When asked for clarification on the 'non-commercial'
assertion, Stowell replied by e-mail, 'That is what I was told by Chris
Now I know for sure that SCO isn't reading
Groklaw in detail, or they'd know better than to claim only 16-bit and
only noncommercial. I wrote about this on July 14, so they could have
saved themselves some embarrassment, had they read what I wrote about
this very subject.
They did release it under a noncommerical use license, and they also later released it under a BSD-like license, as we saw in the letter. Neither license was restricted to 16-bit only. I found proof on this subject, which I sent to Dennis Ritchie back in July,
because he had a broken link on his UNIX history page, which my
research made it possible to fix, despite SCO having removed some
historical materials about the Ancient UNIX release, and despite the
material no longer being available through Google or Wayback.
I think it's worth repeating my research now, because it is
dispositive, in my opinion, and because I expect SCO to try to produce some "evidence"
of their contention, and it is possible to have the complete picture,
despite all the disappeared material on their site so as to be able to
answer them fully if they do. Not every detail may be helpful to the good guys, and I can't evaluate that not knowing for sure all the details of where the code came from, but truth is truth, so here goes.
First, you might like to read
this material, from "Why Caldera Released Unix: A Brief History" by
Ian F. Darwin, 03/01/2002:
"Our strangest dreams sometimes
take on a reality of their own. In January, Caldera, the latest owners
of the "official" Unix source code, decided to release some of the
older versions (up to "V7" and "32V") under an open source license.
While not as significant as it would have been, say, ten years ago, it
is nice that everyone now has access to the code that first made Unix
popular, and that led to the development of the 4BSD system that
underlies FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Apple's Darwin (which in turn
underlies Mac OS X). Since I was active in the computer field through
almost all the years of Unix's development, I'd like to comment briefly
on the Caldera announcement in its full context. . . .
do tend to come full circle. It was Caldera that, on January 23 of this
year, disencumbered the entire source code of Unix, up to and including
the Seventh Edition (1979) and its VAX port "32V" from which BSD had
started the development that led to 4.0BSD. (32V is basically V7, minus
some bits that were written in the PDP-11 assembly language, and the
remainder was adapted to work on the VAX.) This seems to mean that BSD
Unix is, at last, fully disencumbered, even the few parts that couldn't
be used in the various BSD systems over the years due to residual AT&T
is Mr. Ritchie's web site on UNIX history. And here is a
paragraph from the April 18, 2000 press release from Caldera that
mentions the noncommercial use, which is what SCO was relying on, thinking perhaps that the later letter had disappeared, or perhaps they didn't know about it, ha ha:
"SCO is releasing additional source code for reference use in an effort to improve industry standard Open Source tools and technologies. These technologies will be available to download in the next few weeks. Additionally, SCO has simplified its 'Ancient' UNIX program and waived the $100 processing
fee. Anyone will be able to log onto the SCO web site and download historically preserved UNIX code for educational and non-commercial use."
So far, it seems to back up what SCO is saying. But if you read this discussion thread, you find folks, including Dennis Ritchie,
recalling and someone eventually producing a private email from Caldera about this BSD-like release, but the worry was that a private email might not be enough to prove they really did release Ancient UNIX under the BSD-like license, and some anticipated that SCO might deny it, which they did just try to do. Greg Lehey, who had a copy of the original license, not the later, BSD one, posted some of the terms of the original license
here, which I reproduce in part:
"2.1 (a) CALDERA
INTERNATIONAL, INC. grants to LICENSEE a personal, nontransferable and
nonexclusive right to use, in the AUTHORIZED COUNTRY, each SOURCE CODE
PRODUCT identified in Section 3 of this AGREEMENT, solely for personal
use (as restricted in Section 2.1(b)) and solely on or in conjunction
with DESIGNATED CPUs, and/or Networks of CPUs, licensed by LICENSEE
through this SPECIAL SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT for such SOURCE CODE
PRODUCT. Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOURCE
CODE PRODUCT and to prepare DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT based on such SOURCE
CODE PRODUCT, provided that any such modification or DERIVED BINARY
PRODUCT that contains any part of a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT subject to this
AGREEMENT is treated hereunder the same as such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT.
CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. claims no ownership interest in any portion
of such a modification or DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT that is not part of a
SOURCE CODE PRODUCT."[emphasis added]
That last is an
interesting tidbit, don't you think? Despite this being the more
restrictive of the two licenses, no ownership interest in derivative code
is claimed. There is such a disconnect between old SCO and now SCO.
It's all very 1984.
In any case, they later rereleased under
the BSD-like license, which is even looser in its terms, as you saw in the
letter that flustered Mr. Stowell, and, if you haven't already, you can read it here. It's
Now, on the 16-bit versus 32-bit issue, according this TUHS
thread, the old license, which you can read here, said
"The SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS to which SCO grants rights
under this Agreement are restricted to the following UNIX Operating
Systems, including SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEMs, that operate on the
16-Bit PDP-11 CPU and early versions of the 32-Bit UNIX Operating
System with specific exclusion of UNIX System V and successor
"16-Bit UNIX Editions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
"32-bit 32V"[emphasis added]
In this license, only System V was excluded. As was pointed out
in the online conversation, "This implies that System III on the PDP11
is covered by this license, as SCO has the legal rights to System III
and it is a SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEM." The later BSD license had
this clause, in contrast:
"The source code for which Caldera
International, Inc. grants rights are limited to the following UNIX
Operating Systems that operate on the 16-Bit PDP-11 CPU and early
versions of the 32-Bit UNIX Operating System, with specific exclusion
of UNIX System III and UNIX System V and successor operating
"32-bit 32V UNIX
"16 bit UNIX Versions 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7"[emphasis added]
Here, System III is excluded. Neither license was for 16-bit only. Another discovery of note, Warren Toomey on
this page mentions that despite the earlier, more restrictive
license, you could easily access System III source code directly anyway, with
no click-through license, on Caldera's web site, at www2. caldera.com/offers/ancient001/sysIII/ , not that he recommended it.
That was in March of 2003.
Catch that date? March of 2003, the same month the lawsuit was filed, you could access, without any click-through license, System III, according to him. The link no longer works, and I am listing it here so as to make the history complete.
This would seem to speak to the trade secrets issue, evidence that SCO
was careless in protecting their "trade secret" on System III,
regardless of the license. And that their elaborate hide-the-code-because-of-contract-confidentiality-clause cloak and dagger behavior was, well, silly and unnecessary at best. Toomey here
says that he had emailed SCO about it "many months ago" (this was
written in March of this year) "but they haven't fixed it yet."
Someone else on the thread posted
this link, where you find the book "Open Sources: Voices from the
Open Source Revolution", including this chapter, "Twenty Years of
Berkeley Unix --From AT&T-Owned to Freely Redistributable" by Marshall
Kirk McKusick, who was involved in the BSDI lawsuit, which briefly
covers the early history of UNIX, including the lawsuit. If you read it, you'll see that if SCO is planning on retrying that case, they will likely lose.
that's the explanation for the conflicting stories. If SCO is trying
to erase uncomfortable history, they will find it a losing battle.
There are too many people who care and too many still alive who helped
write UNIX and remember everything. A lot of them have material handy
on old computers down in the basement and in paper files in the attic,
as well as in their memories. And then there's people like me, who
just keep digging and digging, like a patient little mole, despite disappearing evidence, with the help of the internet, which doesn't forget, so that after SCO
speaks, we can tell the world the truth.
|Dennis Ritchie Acknowledges the Code
Saturday, August 23 2003 @ 02:21 AM EDT
With all the speculation going on, I thought it made sense to just ask Dennis Ritchie himself if he wrote the code, as Bruce Perens suggested might be the case. His answer makes clear that this is definitely old code from the 70s, and here's what he says about authorship:
"So: either Ken or I wrote it originally. I know that the comments that first appeared by the 6th edition were definitely written by me, since I spent some time annotating the almost comment-free earlier editions."
So that's one piece we have nailed down. SCO said that they ought to know what they own. Well, I'd say Dennis Ritchie can be relied on to know what he and Ken Thompson wrote and when it was written.
|McBride Interviewed by Heise
Friday, August 22 2003 @ 03:37 PM EDT
Slashdot Translation Snips of the Heise Interviews
Obviously, I can't vouch for the accuracy, except that it seems to match the computer translation, except for making good English sense, so here it is:
c't: Mr. Sontag, the code sequences shown by you on the forum have been analyzed by experts. Result: Silicon graphics inserted them into Linux, not IBM
Chris Sontag: That is right. This example is not from IBM, but another of our licensees. At the moment, I cannot comment on who it is.
c't: The copy is supposed to go much further back than your rights on Unix. Moreover, it is said to have already been distributed by AT&T under the BSD licence, therefore freely accessible, and could have entered into Linux that way.
Sontag: That's completely wrong. We posess all files of this code with the complete source tree (lit: pedigree) in all version, up to the origin in 1969. We have looked through all tapes and all versions of the code. The code in question dates from exactly the version of Unix System V which we have delivered to SGI and licenced with a signed contract. This version was at the disposal of the licensee, and it was never in BSD or other releases. And the letter-by-letter copy of this version is found in Linux. We want to point out such flagrant breaches.
c't: But this evidence is useless in the dispute with IBM?
c't: Why then are you demonstrating exactly this code publicly as evidence? You are sueing IBM.
Sontag: We found several kinds of breaches of copyright and of contracts. Literal copying of code was the most obvious kind, and we wanted to prove this as well. Therefore, we have shown it in the public talk, and demonstrate the example also unter terms of an NDA. In the case of IBM, we have not yet found such cases of verbatim copying, but we have not examined everything yet. With IBM, this is above all about a different kind of breach of contract, namely the transfer of derived results on a very large scale. The licensing agreement provides that all changes and derived products remain within the originally licensed body of work. . . .
Darl McBride talked about the authorship of SGI of the code examples demonstrated by SCO, which Chris Sontag didn't want to confirm. In his interview with c't, the head of SCO was less shy in naming names.
c't: The code examples you demonstrated are said to be entered into Linux by Silicon Graphics, not IBM
Darl McBride: That's right, these were examples for literal copying from Unix into Linux, which happened at SGI.
c't: Does SGI have to prepare itself for a billion-dollar law suit?
McBride: Possible. For sure they're not on the safe side. But currently, we are fully focusing on the IBM case, this takes enough of our energy and ressources. . . .
c't: Others have made their decision for Linux already a long time ago, especially public governments. In Europe, as well as in China, there's big support for Linux. Don't you fear negative consequences from that side?
McBride: That is thinkable, but it can't stop us from getting our rights. By the way, we have just hired Gregory Blepp from SuSE for international business. He's from the Linux side and is supposed to help us with international business development.
c't: You are acting fairly belligerent on this forum. You declared war against open source, since it becomes destructive for the software industry. Does the whole movement have to die so that a few software companies can live well?
McBride: Actually, that was more aimed at the GPL, not open source as a whole. There's a lot of very valuable effort in open source. But the extreme interpretation that nobody himself owns anything that he developed himself, that can't remain like this. With this, created value gets destroyed. The GPL must change or it will not survive in the long run. I have discussed with many exponents of the open source side about this already.
c't: And what did they tell you?
McBride: The spectrum of views is very broad. Let's put it this way: With some, I could discuss reasonably about the fact that a software company needs to earn money. But not with all of them, I could find a common denominator.