Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Killing Linux (PC Magazine)
Here's a
Dvorak column on the SCO suit. "The Linux community seems to
have put its collective head in the sand. Nobody seems to realize that
Linux and the entire open-source movement are at grave risk. Apparently the
open-source idealists don't understand the quirks of the legal
system."
(Log in to post comments)
One quirk of the legal system Posted Jun 3, 2003 23:06 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] Things the DoD and the NSA use don't get banned. The government has enough at stake in the open source movement by now to make sure that it doesn't die. They don't have enough invested to make sure that the process doesn't become technically illegal, but they will make sure that enforcement doesn't prevent the software they want written from getting written.It's doubtful that IBM would emerge as the only Linux vendor allowed to distribute parts of the kernel, because those parts are derived from the kernel, and, if IBM distributed them other than under the GPL, they would be violating the GPL on the rest of the kernel; IBM isn't likely to waste billions of dollars like that. The most likely situation is that the contract in question between SCO and IBM is their failed joint project, and IBM will settle the lawsuit, paying for all the rights to the results, and the problem will go away. Possible, but less likely is, would be that IBM brings out the contract in court and it turns out that SCO doesn't have a case. Less likely still would be that SCO actually wins (and survives long enough), in which some code gets removed or rewritten. It is highly doubtful that this will damage Linux (beyond the code in question) or the open source process, since it, at most, comes down to IBM offering a license to something they lack the right to license, and others accepting IBM's license. If true, it is entirely IBM's fault, since SCO has never even alleged that anyone other than IBM would be able to tell that IBM was distributing code they didn't own.
Killing Linux (PC Magazine) Posted Jun 3, 2003 23:25 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link] "Apparently..."Dvorak has his head in the sand, if he thinks we're ignoring this, or that we don't understand the implications. But since when would *that* be news...?
Killing Linux (PC Magazine) or the M$ dream Posted Jun 4, 2003 13:34 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] killing Linux was something that was on M$ mind for about the last 5 years, as the halloween documents proves it!!...Has Dvorack read it http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.php Or is he another one payed to cast FUD??...
Killing Linux Posted Jun 5, 2003 4:00 UTC (Thu) by llywrch (guest, #9903) [Link] > ``Apparently..."I think that sums up Dvorak's entire article: he states four possible outcomes, but spins them all to make it look as if Linux can't help but suffer for this opportunistic barratry. A better commentary on this whole affair would be to state that this might be the first accusation that the Linux development community stole someone's IP, but it won't be the last: copnsider every famous writer, painter or musician who hits it big & at last gets some financial security, has to face various parties who think they can sue for a share of the goods. (An example from Linux's own history was the mook who registered Linux as his own trademark, then attempted to extract licensing fees.) So how do we prove that no one stole code that rightfully belongs to someone else? There are several steps -- but I have to leave the execution to someone else to do because I sadly lack the time. (Hey, I'm giving these ideas to the community =-- if you do the work, feel free to claim the credit). 1. If there truly was SCO code in the Linux source, where would it lie? My guess is that it would most likely in the various parts written in assembler -- if McBride can be trusted when he claims Linux stole the parts of their code base that makes UNIX run best on the x86 processor. Why doesn't someone create diffs on those files, & see if any large chunks of code has been added between various revisions -- say 1.0.x, 1.1.x, 1.2.x, 2.0.x, 2.1.x, 2.2.20, 2.4.18, 2.5.x. My guess is that these files have shown gradual, careful changes that do not reflect someone cut-n-pasting any large amount of code form an unknown source. 2. If there truly was SCO code in the Linux source, how would someone add it? Here Zack Brown & his Kernel Traffic reports is invaluable: time & again he has provided documentation how he accepted contributions to the Linux code base. And one point Brown makes very clear is that following 2.4.0, the Linux kernel has actually bene in a state of vigorous forking: there must be about half a dozen versions of the latest kernel, depending on how much work Torvalds, Alan Cox, Marcelo Tostatti, Andrew Morton, Andrea Arcangeli, & a few others whose names I can't remember have done. (And then there are various collections of patches that are managed in parallel to the current releases.) Exactly which collection of function points is McBride claiming that he finds all of this stolen code in? 3. If there truly was SCO code in the Linux source, what functionality would it add? From my misadventures with SCO, it had a very limited set of hardware it functioned with -- far less than Linux does today. Is there any one device that SCO works with that Linux didn't . . . until recently? 4. If there truly was SCO code in the Linux source, what would kind of punishment would be levied on the person who submitted the code? One thing that certain professors drummed into my head in college that if a student was caught in an act of plagarism, they would probably be expelled. So far Torvalds & the rest of the crew have not had to confront this, but a general statement that ``we do not condone this, & it would be the end of any programmer's career if we discovered this" might help calm the fears of any nervous nellies concerning IP & Linux. These are the kinds of questions we need to have answers for whenever someone claims their code was stolen & rolled into an Open Source/FSF project. Fortunately McBride is being so transparent about the fact his strategy is to be a thorn in the side of Linux until somebody throws enough money at his dying business to make them go away. Unfortunately, the next person with questionable morals who pulls this stunt might not be so easy to identify & deal with. Geoff
Killing Linux (PC Magazine) Posted Jun 3, 2003 23:33 UTC (Tue) by lyda (guest, #7429) [Link] he's an idiot. his article talks on and on about patents.that's not sco's suit. could people please explain this to him? registration there is free.
Killing Linux (PC Magazine) Posted Jun 3, 2003 23:48 UTC (Tue) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] No, he's not an idiot, it's just his style.John has a long history of publishing alarmist articles; this one is no different. They generate hits if nothing else. Next month it will be something else. Whatever is threatening the very existance of the IT industry today will be of no interest four weeks from now, although this might get recycled a few months down the road again.
Americam dream (or nightmare) Posted Jun 4, 2003 0:06 UTC (Wed) by daniele (guest, #11462) [Link] It's amazing to see how americans think they rule the world in every aspect. Do youseriously think a court in Utah can stop a worldwide phenomena known as GNU-Linux basing the ban upon a contract infringement in the US ?! For one, the SCO site in Germany has already disappeared (try: www.sco.de ) after a tribunal has fined them with 250,000 EUR as they continue to damage other companies' businesses with fake allegations - since SCO did not prove anything until know, it had the plug pulled. This attitude is going to spread in all the world as the Linux business has been there for years now, and SCO was part of the ones enyoying the profits f this business model: they now decided to get rich fast with lawsuits, but it's too late and there might been unexpected consequences like the one I mention above at the end of their road.
Americam dream (or nightmare) Posted Jun 4, 2003 4:12 UTC (Wed) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link] Thanks for some perspective... :-) You mean the USA isn't the ruler of the whole earth? Gosh, I could have sworn... ;-)
Americam dream (or nightmare) Posted Jun 4, 2003 14:35 UTC (Wed) by ken_i_m (guest, #4938) [Link] Perhaps the US is not the supreme, all powerful, world leader just yet but King Bush and his court have only gotten started on their "war on terrorism" to establish God's plan. A glorious plan which will last a thousnad years.Sieg Heil King Bush! Sieg Heil Lord Ashcroft! Sieg Heil Lord Rumsfeld!
Americam dream (or nightmare) Posted Jun 4, 2003 15:03 UTC (Wed) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link] Godwin.Bush won't survive another election. (He didn't, really, survive *this* one, but that's a) offtopic, and b) *very* effectively documented by the Vincent Bugliosi book "None Dare Call It Treason", so if you think the last USA presidential election was legit, please read the book before responding here. :-) But he is kinda acting like the King Of The World, isn't he? [ Dixie Chicks quote goes here ]
Of course it was legit... Posted Jun 4, 2003 16:22 UTC (Wed) by ronaldcole (guest, #1462) [Link] Bugliosi probably was wrung his last nickle out of Charles Manson and had to publish something controversial. The Electoral College voted for Bush. The electors are not obligated to vote the way the popular vote goes in the state. That they usually do is more a function of the governor of the state appointing them, but there is no legal obligation.Now stop the uninformed {Bush,US}-bashing before it taints your SCO-bashing!
Americam dream (or nightmare) Posted Jun 4, 2003 4:25 UTC (Wed) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] I agree. I think that the SCO suit may turn out to be very detrimental to the US IT industry and may actually, worst case scenario, destroy the US's IT leadership role. However, that said, the newer US laws tend to be all about money. So, if the US courts smell that their decisions may do severe economic harm they will cave.
sco.de tribunal/fine link, please? Posted Jun 4, 2003 9:07 UTC (Wed) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] For one, the SCO site in Germany has already disappeared (try: www.sco.de) after a tribunal has fined them with 250,000 EUR as they continue to damage other companies' businesses with fake allegations - since SCO did not prove anything until know, it had the plug pulled. Link? Please?
sco.de tribunal/fine link, please? Posted Jun 4, 2003 9:49 UTC (Wed) by daniele (guest, #11462) [Link] Here's the linkhttp://de.news.yahoo.com/030530/13/3gxke.html And it's a fact that both www.sco.de and www.caldera.de have disappeared - they were there last week just as www.sco.it (for Italy, e.g.)
sco.de tribunal/fine link, please? Posted Jun 4, 2003 9:51 UTC (Wed) by cloth (guest, #8382) [Link] Hi,http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/odi-02.06.03-000/ Sorry, it's only in german. - Chris
sco.de tribunal/fine link, please? Posted Jun 4, 2003 12:38 UTC (Wed) by KieronBrowne (subscriber, #4014) [Link] Here's an article in English:
Y'all are beautiful people Posted Jun 4, 2003 13:22 UTC (Wed) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] My way of saying "thanks for the links, they're gunner prove useful!" (-:
Yaw boodifool too! Posted Jun 5, 2003 2:10 UTC (Thu) by cyanide (guest, #2236) [Link] Hi Leon. :-)Still PLUGging away?
Killing Linux (PC Magazine) Posted Jun 4, 2003 1:11 UTC (Wed) by NerdlyMcGeek (guest, #8453) [Link] This man is a complete MonkeyTard. Do not waste your time wiyh this pathetic drivel. Clearly just another M$ paid fudster as is his employer.
Killing Linux (PC Magazine) Posted Jun 4, 2003 2:12 UTC (Wed) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] His article, while being written in a way that seems obviously dumb (except tothe 30% of Americans who really are that dumb and the other 40% who imitate the dumb ones because they think it makes them seem more virile), also strikes me as inexcusably offensive to Bulgarians (replace 'Bulgarian' in the article with other ethnic groups). If any Bulgarian wants to write to the editor of his rag and get him in trouble, you didn't get that suggestion from me. :)
Killing Linux (PC Magazine) Posted Jun 4, 2003 4:13 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] He is also "inexcusably offensive" to Microsoft two sentences later. I think it's just his style. I wonder if he is by any chance the author of the "BSD is dying" troll popular on Slashdot.
Killing Linux (PC Magazine) Posted Jun 4, 2003 8:31 UTC (Wed) by bearspear (guest, #11609) [Link] Okay, what's the big deal about patents, IP or the like?What was the last version of kernel that SCO sold in one of their Linux products? Wouldn't that code be under the GPL? Wouldn't SCO have distributed it under the GPL? So even if their precious Unix code is in there, it's GPLed. Or am I missing something?
Killing Linux (PC Magazine) Posted Jun 4, 2003 13:23 UTC (Wed) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] This argument is weak because when Caldera was distributing Linux, they didn't have access to the SCO source, and so -- let's pretend for a minute that the claims have a leg to stand on here -- they didn't have the right to release anything under the GPL. Only the real owner of code can GPL something. Then, after the SCO purchase, it took them a while to integrate everything and realize the violations. When they did, they stopped distributing Linux.This may all sound a bit fishy, but the big thing is: we don't want to argue against it, because Microsoft would have a field day -- "look how dangerous the GPL is! Your code can become open source even though you don't mean it to!" If a company says they didn't mean to release something under the GPL (that it was done by someone without the proper authority, for example) and it looks as if there might be some merit to that claim, we should respect that. It seems unlikely that their *other* claims have any merit whatsoever, so let's not go this dangerous route.
Killing Linux (PC Magazine) Posted Jun 4, 2003 14:14 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Just look at what you are saying!...Caldera bought SCO selling GPL code, but it made a mistake releasing, in the entusiasm of selling GPL code, some code it really didnt want to release under the GPL or that belonged to a partner... So because of that mistake Caldera-now-SCO as merit in sueing everybody and theirs dogs! Where is the *fuc...* logic of this?? CAN ANYONE SUE TO RESTRAIN SCO IN USA, LIKE IT HAPPEN IN EUROPE,... WHERE IS THE LINUX INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE????
Killing Linux (PC Magazine) Posted Jun 4, 2003 14:56 UTC (Wed) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] Caldera bought SCO selling GPL code, but it made a mistake releasing, in the entusiasm of selling GPL code, some code it really didnt want to release under the GPL or that belonged to a partner... No, that's not what I'm saying. "Entusiasm" doesn't come into it. The GPL'd code was released before -- according to the argument -- the company had any right to do so. That it was still available a few months after that is just corporate inertia, and they stopped that as soon as possible. That's where the "*fuc...* logic" is. I don't see why you're having such trouble following.
Killing Linux (PC Magazine) Posted Jun 5, 2003 8:19 UTC (Thu) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] >>That it was still available a few months after that is just corporate inertia, and they stopped that as soon as possible.Even a few months is not acceptable, but if you believe SCO, they started finding infringed code 18 months before they stopped selling the code. Of course, McBride said in a different interview that they didn't sue anyone earlier because there was no one worth suing before IBM got involved. IBM became deeply involved with Linux in 2002. The code that has been mentioned the most, JFS (the AIX filesystem) was released under the GPL in Feb 2000. So basically, SCO was distributing Linux for 1.5 to 3 years after they first found the problem (depending on which reporter McBride was lying to). PS: Unixware JFS code would look similar to Linux JFS but the Linux version was actually taken from OS/2.
Killing Linux (PC Magazine) Posted Jun 4, 2003 15:52 UTC (Wed) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] I think the situation is less confusing if one thinks about SCOX as pursuing twodifferent actions. Action A, the one with real legal status, is the shakedown suit of IBM on the basis of alleged contract violation. Action B, a bunch of PR based FUDing against Linux, has no legal status yet in the USA and is simply an attempt to disparage a competitor. If we keep these two things separate in our minds, it is easier to make sense of the discussion. I agree with the point that Caldera's release of Linux under GPL probably won't be a decisive factor in the courts decision on Action A. This is a different matter from LinuxTag's restraining order against Action B. It might be much tougher to get such an order in the USA because free speech laws are stronger here and because SCO did't contest the restraining order in Germany and they probably would here. Could still be worth a try however.
Killing Linux (PC Magazine) Posted Jun 7, 2003 0:02 UTC (Sat) by leandro (subscriber, #1460) [Link] The guy just needs some historical, global perspective. "Linux dies"? Most likely corporate adoptions are stalled, until offending parts are rewritten or the Hurd is substituted; at worst GNU survives, is strengthened by transfer of momentum from Linux and open source movement, finally delivers the Hurd and continues were things stopped ten years ago, in competition against the BSDs.In other words, this could be Linux' BSD vs AT&T. BSD eventually won, AT&T claims were shown to be without merit, BSDs survived to thrive, but the momentum enjoyed by them was transferred to GNU/Linux. As before, the real winner could be the one organisation to have a real line of defence against this, to wit FSF with its copyright assignments policy. But BSDs could also win, as some people who transferred from them realise that Linux has no protection against what almost killed them. But GNU has.
|
|
||||||||||||