Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case (ECommerceTimes)
ECommerce Times has posted a story
about the latest developments in the SCO case. "...Chris Sontag,
SCO's senior vice president and general manager of SCO Source, told
TechNewsWorld that the company has now unveiled the offending code and that
it can be remedied. 'The vast majority of the code [in violation] is the
derivative work from IBM, so that's a great place to start,' Sontag
stated. 'We're talking about more than one million lines of code that can
be remedied.'" This is actually an interesting thing for him to
have said. It appears we now know the bulk of SCO's complaint. Even if
SCO gets a court to agree that it owns everything that IBM allowed into the
same room as Unix, and that IBM's release of that code was a breach of its
contract with SCO, the fact remains that IBM released that code.
It's not at all clear that SCO can call it back, or attack those who are
making use of it.
(Log in to post comments)
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case (ECommerceTimes) Posted Aug 20, 2003 19:43 UTC (Wed) by stevenj (subscriber, #421) [Link] Even if SCO gets a court to agree that it owns everything that IBM allowed into the same room as Unix, and that IBM's release of that code was a breach of its contract with SCO, the fact remains that IBM released that code. It's not at all clear that SCO can call it back, or attack those who are making use of it. What are you smoking? Please don't throw the "Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" quote at us. Sure, it would be almost impossible to eliminate all extant copies of the code, but you could darn well sue any large corporation who distributes it into oblivion, effectively killing commercial investment in Linux (the kernel). Such a ruling (hopefully unlikely) would be a nightmare.
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case (ECommerceTimes) Posted Aug 20, 2003 19:51 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] It has nothing to do with routing around anything. IBM may have breached its contract when it released the code it did (though I don't think so), but that doesn't mean that the code wasn't released. SCO does not own that code - they simply claim that IBM broke a promise not to release it. It may well turn out that SCO is not legally able to recall that code, even if it prevails in its suit against IBM.
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case (ECommerceTimes) Posted Aug 20, 2003 20:42 UTC (Wed) by stevenj (subscriber, #421) [Link] The editors wrote if SCO gets a court to agree that it owns everything... What else can SCO claim to "own", if not the copyright? The idea of trade secrets in the Unix System V source code is ludicrous. (Patents would be even worse, of course, but they don't seem to be in the cards.)I don't see how they could prevail in such a claim, but to be sanguine about the possibility is foolish.
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case (ECommerceTimes) Posted Aug 21, 2003 2:21 UTC (Thu) by uraeus (guest, #4668) [Link] I think you are intentionally misreading the editors piece, even if the text 'if SCO gets a court to agree that it owns everything' is a bit misleading. What the IBM vs SCO case is about is wether IBM has the right to release code they wrote that where originally intended for use with IBM's versions of Unix. The question has never been wether SCO owns that code, its clearly IBM's, and SCO can't AFAIK even put the code into their own version of Unix. The legal question is wether IBM has a legal contract with SCO saying that they can't use the code they write for Unix with another system. A part of this dispute AFAIK is the definition of what constitutes a derived work and not. An interesting point here is that IBM has multiple times stated that JFS, which SCO lists as one of the pieces of code that IBM has done this with, is a port from OS/2 not from AIX.
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case (ECommerceTimes) Posted Aug 21, 2003 6:51 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Hmm, if the thing (JFS etc.) is a derivative work of System V, then SCO do have copyright on it. But that's not what they claim in their complaint. They are saying that it is a breech of contract in relation to trade secrets. I can't remember any part of the lawsuit being about copyright at all.They only started spewing about copyright later on, but never actually mentioned anything along those lines to IBM (officially). So, my guess is that they are just trying to build up as much PR as they can by claiming "it all ours", where it might come down to the what the complaint says - trade secret dispute. They are most likely doing all this because they have a very slim chance of winning the trade secret dispute because they published the damn thing themselves.
SCO's copyrights Posted Aug 21, 2003 9:35 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link] Man, SCO does not own any copyrights of nothing in System V; they have a license from Novell (who owns said copyrights).
SCO's copyrights Posted Aug 21, 2003 11:43 UTC (Thu) by mali (guest, #4553) [Link] Are you sure? SCO challenged that and Novell kinda backed off...
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case (ECommerceTimes) Posted Aug 21, 2003 12:54 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] If SCO gets to own everything in the sense explicitly taken, then he -"SCO"- is in position to buy IBM, and not the other way around...So corbet point makes a lot of sense.
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case (ECommerceTimes) Posted Aug 20, 2003 20:04 UTC (Wed) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] I found it interesting that the writer of the article didn't mention the BSD license.I suppose it is all too complicated. But that was the most important fact. Caldera does own the code, but they released it under a BSD type license. End of issue. Derek
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case (ECommerceTimes) Posted Aug 20, 2003 20:39 UTC (Wed) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] Actually, assuming you're referring to the Berkley Packet Filter code, that's not exactly true. SCO was claiming that the Linux version was an 'obfuscated copy' but in fact it's well documented that it is not, it's a clean reimplementation based on a published specification. Furthermore, I don't think Caldera owns the copyright on it anyway, rather it's copyright of the Berkley Board of Regents. SCO can use it, of course, under the BSD license like everyone else, but they don't own it. Furthermore, the fact that they publically confused it with their own code seems to imply that the copyright notice was stripped in their copy. Either that or they could not possibly have not known they were lying.
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case (ECommerceTimes) Posted Aug 21, 2003 8:09 UTC (Thu) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] I tried unsuccessfully to make the point that licenses do matter, Linus et al areaware of them, and that the discussions that have occurred are over the head of most journalists. Bruce's article is excellent, well researched. and the point is very clear that with one of the snippets at least, Caldera themselves released it under a 'BSD' type license. I know what that means, you do too. But this ECommerceTimes article doesn't seem to see the meaning of that fact. Caldera could very well own some of the code in question, but when they release it under a license like the BSD license, anyone is free to use it. Most peoples eyes glaze over when hearing a discussion about legal arguments. Journalists have a 5 minute attention span. Linux is modern day example of an old style barn raising. SCO helped with lifting a few beams, pounding a few nails. Now they are saying the barn is theirs. Derek
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions [About Barns?] Posted Aug 21, 2003 12:36 UTC (Thu) by ocelot_wreak (guest, #14326) [Link] Would a slightly better example be that SCO helped drag a couple of termite-riddenlogs up to the building site where the new barn was built? Then later, after (unsuccessfully) trying to claim ownership of the new barn, they decided to just burn the whole thing to the ground, figuring that their old, half-collapsed barn would be the only barn in town?
Business Week has picked up the story Posted Aug 20, 2003 21:20 UTC (Wed) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] Here is an interesting article on this in Business Week. Seems the word is really starting to hit the mainstream now. It's hilarious how their lawyer tries to spin this at the end of the article... weak.
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case (ECommerceTimes) Posted Aug 20, 2003 21:35 UTC (Wed) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] Can anyone put their hands on the typical letter that accompanied the AT&T Unix tape back in the 70's?
Funnier by the day Posted Aug 21, 2003 1:25 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] SCO are truly amusing. So, now they want to "remedy" the problem?I reckon the first thing to do, when you're dealing with copyright infringement, is to stop the making of additional copies that are supposedly ruining your business. So, how come Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Debian etc. aren't being sued for pressing thousands of CDs every day? After all, they are major copyright infringers, right? Such a strong case SCO have...
Funnier by the day Posted Aug 21, 2003 6:18 UTC (Thu) by vondo (guest, #256) [Link] I think they mean "remedy" in a legal sense. IBM gives them money.
Funnier by the day Posted Aug 21, 2003 6:40 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Yeah, that's what I meant as well. The first legal remedy is to stop further infringement. They actually have to do this, but they are choosing not to. Really strange way of "enforcing copyright".Go figure...
SCO stock Posted Aug 21, 2003 4:42 UTC (Thu) by p9ing (guest, #1561) [Link] Well, I guess whether people try to buy or short SCO's stock depends on a couple things: the extent to which1. the *possibility* of licensing income for SCO is perceived 2. who is more effective in their argument: SCO or linux developers For SCO to actually argue their position in court seems to circumvent what seems to be a quicker pump and dump scheme.
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case (ECommerceTimes) Posted Aug 21, 2003 6:20 UTC (Thu) by vondo (guest, #256) [Link] I don't think we will ever know the bulk of SCO's complaint. They change what they are saying every day. They don't know what their complaint is, they just keep throwing things out seeing what has a chance of sticking.
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case (ECommerceTimes) Posted Aug 21, 2003 7:26 UTC (Thu) by hamjudo (guest, #363) [Link] they just keep throwing things out seeing what has a chance of sticking.SCO has thrown so much in so many directions that SCO itself will end up being buried in it. The problem is that others may notice a few places where it stuck briefly on some part of the open source community. This represents the long term danger of the situation. Even though SCO will lose, it is providing templates for others to try. The next evil organization may be more skilled in the courts and have a competent PR team.
Boies not around? Posted Aug 21, 2003 8:26 UTC (Thu) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link] Anyone else note the noted lack of comment by Boies? After the first few press conferences, I don't recall seeing his name associated with ANY of the SCO side's quotes. Makes me think he took the case, then once he looked at it some more, he found out it's a non-started and is distancing himself. Or maybe I'm just not reading the articles closely enough.
Boies not around? Posted Aug 21, 2003 9:28 UTC (Thu) by pto (guest, #5753) [Link] I suspect he's spending more time thinking about how he's going to avoid getting caught up in an SEC fraud investigation than he's thinking about new legal arguments that SCO could use.
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case (ECommerceTimes) Posted Aug 21, 2003 9:50 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Isn't there some company/wealthy person, with scruples, who will buy SCO and release this old crap under a clearly free license and be done with it?Or are all wealthy people just out for themselves, and trying to figure ways to hijack Linux?
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case (ECommerceTimes) Posted Aug 21, 2003 11:15 UTC (Thu) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] <blockquote><i>Isn't there some company/wealthy person, with scruples, who will buy SCO and release this old crap under a clearly free license and be done with it?</i></blockquote> <p> Why? They already did that themselves a year and a half ago, when they were still called Caldera.
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case (ECommerceTimes) Posted Aug 21, 2003 12:42 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] I think by 'old crap' he meant System V and the other things SCO is trying to use for its smoke-and-mirrors extortion racket, rather than the V[567]/V32, etc. codebases. And I agree, it would be nice for someone to buy them out and GPL it all. But I doubt severely that they would take the money, or rather that their handlers in Redmond would allow them to, even if there were someone with the money in hand and the initiative to do it. Their intent is all about destroying the GPL by whatever means possible, not actually about settling the case. The stock pump is just a side thing--another way to get their greed fix for the day.No, I'm not cynical. Why do you ask? :-)
New SCO argument (news.com) Posted Aug 21, 2003 14:10 UTC (Thu) by stevegehl (guest, #3738) [Link] It is interesting to take a look at the news.com interview with Mark Heise, of Boise Shiller & Flexner (I prefer Boise Sh*tter Flexner myself). He is raising a new argument, that open source is different than regular software, so that a license to develop regular software does not mean you can develop open source. He uses the analogy of a license for a play, where the courts ruled that this did not give you a license to make a movie, which is different. Really scary sophistry, if you ask me. But I think he is talking about the 1M lines of IBM code added to Linux. I suspect they will be defeated on this argument, but it is the first one I have seen that had any traction at all. Courts and lawyers love novel arguments.
SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case (ECommerceTimes) Posted Aug 21, 2003 22:07 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Yup...and I'm not a kernel developer, but I do respect those who are, and if you think it's crap, I believe you.Besides, I used to use some of those boxes, and some of the effects of that code *were* crappy. Anyway, here we are back at the fundamental issue---SCO's handlers. Maybe I should therefore post my thoughts on the issue of mis-attributed code, or code that might have been put in because of sloppiness, and how we should handle it. Because, now, at this particular time, the face that we, as a community, put on this may be about the only thing we can use against <parody>Microsoft SpinFud(R)</parody>, other than our very high technical standards. I guess I should go over and do that now.
|
|||||||||||