Yes, there is a problem [LWN.net]

Yes, there is a problem

Posted Aug 22, 2003 1:36 UTC (Fri) by cwitty (subscriber, #4600)
Parent article: Maybe SCO had a point

Bravo! This is the first pro-Linux journalism I've seen in the past couple of days that admits the likelihood that there really is a problem. Regardless of the age of the code, and the silliness of any claims based on such code that Linux could not be enterprise-ready without UNIX, it seems almost certain that someone either:

1) copied code from some file containing a copyright notice, without following the terms of the notice (even if the code was from some BSD-licensed source, the attribution requirements were not followed), or

2) copied code from 32V, or some other probably-public-domain source, without attribution.

If somebody deliberately decided that the 32V code is public domain, and copied the code based on that belief, I'd actually consider that worse than some "accidental" copying by somebody who wasn't thinking about the issues. (I don't know if the judge's comment:
> Consequently, I find that Plaintiff has failed to
> demonstrate a likelihood that it can successfully defend its
> copyright in 32V.
is binding in subsequent court cases, and I don't like the idea of somebody submitting code to Linux with even a faint chance of it being tainted; also, even if you're copying from a public domain source, it's only polite to acknowledge the source.)

I think it's bad that people are going to such efforts to explain why this is just a minor violation, that doesn't really matter (or maybe it's not a violation at all). We want to have the high moral ground. In my opinion, this means we should not use code that hasn't been explicitly released for our use. We should not rely on defenses like "Even if it was copied from SysV, that's almost like 32V, and that's probably public domain", or even "it was copied from 32V, which is public domain" (since the public-domain status of 32V is accidental, rather than deliberate). We should acknowledge a problem, and fix it.

(Of course, the previous paragraph would not apply if this actually went to court; somebody in a court case should use every defense they can, "high moral ground" or not. But this code is, as far as I know, not yet involved in a court case.)

(Log in to post comments)

Yes, there is a problem

Posted Aug 22, 2003 2:35 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

OK, who was the guy ?

"...or maybe it's not a violation at all..."

"We" better make ours minds kickly, because a torrent of FUD is coming this way!

I could have been (i wasent really) the one copying it from 32V, i evolved it for SMP and it happens to be identical to sys V in 2 or 3 lines that weren't in the original algorithm, and in places where IT WAS HELPLESS not to happen...

COULDNT USL OR NOVELL HAVE COPYED IT WHEN IT WAS DEVELOPED FOR SGI SYSTEMS ?

IMHO, "WE" WILL NEVER KNOW IT REALLY!

In Linux it sliped the copyright notice, so what, it dosent make it illegal copying to the point of erasing that code. Why not just incert the proper copyright notice...

Is SCO task to prove precedence, wich they cant, because in such a trivial piece of code they would already have showned black on white evidence...

IN THE SAKE OF THE THRUE, is Linux/OSS community task not to get paranoid, in matters that in my belive they can not prove with "TOTAL EXACTNESS" !

The Linux/OSS is making SCO & Ma$ter win it's FUD, by excess of solicitude

HOW GOOD THOSE SCO & Ma$ter FUD BASTARDS ARE, HEIM ?

Yes, there is a problem

Posted Aug 22, 2003 19:28 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]

I say we simply take the high moral ground:

1. We don't steal code.
2. Code thieves will not be welcome.
3. IF SCO has been wronged, we'll fix it. *IF*.
4. This does not give SCO any excuse to: (1) cry "conspiracy, (2) disparge the Linux community, (3) disparage the GPL.
5. (and this is most important,) Make sure everyone is aware that there is a certain amount of obscurity here. Caldera was involved with Linux, so was SGI, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and others.
6. Caldera's behavior WRT their copyrights and how they were being enforced or not *counts.* If anyone at Caldera knew about any of this and looked the other way, it *counts.* And if Caldera staff were shuffling code back and forth between Linux and proprietary UNIX, with no regard for the GPL, thinking neither of us would care as long as they were helping LInux, that counts, also.

Yes, there is a problem

Posted Aug 22, 2003 19:05 UTC (Fri) by urulokion (guest, #14350) [Link]

"(I don't know if the judge's comment:
> Consequently, I find that Plaintiff has failed to
> demonstrate a likelihood that it can successfully defend its
> copyright in 32V.
is binding in subsequent court cases,..."

After reading a bit more about the judges comment, it's all but binding.

The V32 source code was widely published without a copyright statement. This had the potential for losing copyright protection. But copyright law has a number of tests and legal remedies that could be applied to prevent the lose of copyright. Among then are a test of only being published only in small amounts and/or a closed group, or by registering a copyright within 5 years of the date of first publication.

None of the legal remedies where followed, and all of the legal tests the that applied failed. So if the Juedge were to rule on it he most likely would have rules against the Plantiff.

The judge didn't have to rule on on it because USL and BSD, Inc., et al. reached an out of court settlement.