SCO Defends Against Open Source Advocates (InternetWeek)

Posted Aug 26, 2003 22:01 UTC (Tue) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link]

But Sontag said the BPF routines were not intended to be an example of stolen code, but rather a demonstration of how SCO was able to detect "obfuscated" code, or code that had been altered slightly to disguise its origins.

LOL!

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous! Are people supposed to take this seriously?

We're now expected to believe that SCO was not actually showing an example of code that was copied from System V in an obfuscated form after all, but that it was demonstrating that they can detect "obfuscated" code, even though it's beyond dispute that the BPF implementation in Linux that was shown in their presentation is a clean-room implementation coded from a well documented specification. Well I don't think much of their detection capabilities.

If Eric's looking for interesting public statements from SCO so that the company can hang itself, this is surely one of them.

Posted Aug 26, 2003 22:39 UTC (Tue) by ee_man (guest, #14294) [Link]

SCO is and has been violating the law, by defrauding its' shareholders and the general public. If anyone out there has any SCO stock that they've kept for any reason please file a formal complaint with the SEC at www.sec.gov The process is easy and can be implemented on-line with no problems. Perhaps SCO would step down if an SEC probe were to be started into why their upper management has been using the courts to raise stock prices inorder to gain profit from hundreds of thousands of useless stock units.
ee_man

Posted Aug 26, 2003 22:44 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

This story in Computerworld explains how Canopy group is cashing in on SCO's wild accusations. SCO stockholders are the victims. However, I am unable to find any sympathy for people who invested in a shakedown.

Bruce

Posted Aug 27, 2003 0:19 UTC (Wed) by namaseit (guest, #13940) [Link]

Ah...The sky is the limit with SCO. Looks like they are about to pass it by too.

Posted Aug 27, 2003 0:51 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

"What's at issue is that there is copyrighted Unix System V code, Version 4.1 code, copied into Linux. Whether it is used broadly or not, it is widely published and available. SCO's copyright is stripped out and others are taking credit in violation of the copyright," Sontag said.

OK, I think it's time SGI folks write a letter to SCO, appologise for the incident, change the copyright notice and... Oh, wait, the code is not there any more - too ugly!

Please, Sontag, come up with something that people might believe for a change.

Posted Aug 27, 2003 1:10 UTC (Wed) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link]

"What's at issue is that there is copyrighted Unix System V code, Version 4.1 code, copied into Linux. Whether it is used broadly or not, it is widely published and available. SCO's copyright is stripped out and others are taking credit in violation of the copyright"

No.

What's at issue here is copyrighted BSD code copied into System V. The Regents of the University of California copyright is stripped out, and SCO appears to be taking credit in violation of the copyright.

Posted Aug 27, 2003 5:21 UTC (Wed) by nicke (guest, #12150) [Link]

Maybe it IS SGI's code.

According to the code analysis by ESR, a large part of the difference between "ancient" UNIX and the SVR and Linux code in the memory allocation code is SMP stuff, assertions and kernel locks. So maybee the modifications were done by SGI, Irix is based on SV5 and has had SMP for a long time, then those SGI modifications were given back to the SCO SV5 Unix.

Then they used their knowledge, to do similar but Linux specifix modifications to the well known standard algorithm, making their copyright claim perfectly reasonable.

If this is legal for them then comes down to the similar issues about distributing "UNIX methode and concepts" as in the IBM case.

Posted Aug 27, 2003 6:26 UTC (Wed) by lyda (guest, #7429) [Link]

if it can be proved that sco is abusing someone's copyright, can't that person use the dmca to protect that copyright? i mean the dmca is evil and all, but since it's there already can't we use it? likewise, shouldn't sco use the dmca to shut down kernel.org?

in either scenario, wouldn't it bring sco's proof to public scrutiny faster?

Posted Aug 27, 2003 6:44 UTC (Wed) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link]

"Linux advocates also said last week that the memory allocation code is only used in versions of Linux for IA-64 systems, such as systems running on the Intel Itanium chip, representing fewer than 10 percent of Linux installations."

In other news, McDonalds has sold more than 1000 hamburgers, and Olympic athletes make up less than half of the general population.

Posted Aug 27, 2003 7:43 UTC (Wed) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link]

It's pretty funny to listen to Sontag defend himself. They know they're going to lose if they make it to court. IBM knows this; the countersuit is just an attempt to squash SCO before the accumulated legal costs approach Real Money. Plus, Canopy's actions have made it pretty clear that this is just about stock manipulation; they've remembered to pillage before they burn.

And what about the Microsoft funding? A few million probably isn't a bad price tag to give Linux just a little bit of bad press. Remember, they basically donated $150 million to Apple just to preserve "competition". (Sudden thought: wouldn't it be nice if MS donated millions to Linux development to help preserve competition?)

IBM will make this go away, and we can go back to worrying about software patents and the DMCA.

Posted Aug 27, 2003 8:33 UTC (Wed) by neurocrapper (guest, #14025) [Link]

"However, Sontag said that argument holds no water because SCO never intended to release its proprietary code into open source. "U.S. and international copyright law asserts you cannot inadvertently and accidently assign your copyright to someone else," Sontag said."

Rob Landley and Eric Raymond have an excellent beginning response to this in their halloween IX passage:

"The CEO of Caldera during the SCO acquisition and for a number of years afterwards was Ransom Love. An interview Ransom Love gave in August 2001 (a year after the SCO acquisition) includes several interesting statements. In answer to the question “What is your position [on open source] now?”, Love replied “Caldera is absolutely committed to open source... We are going to continue publishing under open source.” In answer to the question "What does the future hold for your unified Linux/Unix platform?", Love replied "With UnixWare we can now take Linux to 32-way systems... So we are taking both and combining them into one platform." When asked about OpenServer, Love said "...what we plan to do is to take the OpenServer technology to Linux, probably with some sort of open source source licence..." When asked "What does the recent acquisition of SCO really mean for Caldera?", Love replied "Our mission is to enable development, deployment and management of a unified Linux and Unix operating system."

If the current management of SCO is completely unaware of what their CEO claimed the company's mission was two years ago, they are incompetent. If they are aware of it, they're being blatantly dishonest. SCO/Caldera devoted entire securities and exchange commission filings to unifying Linux and Unix.

These are just a few examples of their revisionist history. Sure looks like intent and follow-through to me at least.

Posted Aug 27, 2003 9:08 UTC (Wed) by Ken (guest, #14505) [Link]

Fact - The code they are claiming to own is not secret.
Fact - They have to help mitigate damage.
Ergo, they have to show the code.

They aren't showing the code because they have other motives. The motives don't matter in regard to this threat are irrelevant. They need to be forced to show the code as soon as possible so we can be done with them. They also need to be made an example of so that other leeches will stay away.

Software and business process patents must die.
The DMCA must die.

This whole attitude that we have to live with the current legal environment in the US needs to be changed. Whole governments have been overthrown before, luckily I don't think the US government needs that. It has change built into it's process but it has currently been highjacked to serve the rich and large corporations. We need to take back the reins and have a government that is once again "for the people".

Here is a good quote from Abraham Lincoln in a letter he wrote in 1864.

"Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands the the Republic is destroyed."

Be angry, then think, then act.

Ken

Posted Aug 27, 2003 9:28 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

"...said another vendor copied proprietary memory allocation code from Unix into Linux, removed the original copyright notices and attached its own. SCO would not identify which company..."

They dont identify which company(Caldera=themselfs) ??,... and in this seriuos copyright infringement, they dont sue the infringer, but IBM about a contract breach ?!

They can only be demonstrating that the "Prove of Infringing" they have is pure *BULL & LIES*.

This SCO -sontag- thing can really cause a severe nausea on people...

Why dont LWN "select" for publishing only comments from the "Crack Junkie Mcbrd". That way people could have a good laught.

Posted Aug 27, 2003 11:41 UTC (Wed) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

It does make sense that SCO would use as their examples the most easily understood ones, rather than the legally strongest ones. That doesn't affect the fact that neither of these examples should have been included at all, since the first is code on which a case has been lost with more work added by SGI, and the second isn't theirs at all. Of course, what makes an example good for them in general is that it's easily understood, not that it actually proves anything, since they're not in court but in PR. These probably are the "best" examples, therefore, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't more important examples.

Posted Aug 27, 2003 16:46 UTC (Wed) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link]

The slide in question has two panels. The one on the left, with the BPF code, is prominently labeled "System V Code."
When caught, Sontag just says "The slide displaying the code should have been written differently to reflect that intention."
Say what you may, one has to admire the man's brass.

Posted Aug 28, 2003 17:59 UTC (Thu) by mormop (guest, #13775) [Link]

When the Police interrogate suspects one of the main things they are looking out for is
inconsistency in a suspects statements.

The type of inconsistency that suggests guilt or at least involvment in something
suspicious is alarmingly present in SCO's behaviour e.g. "this is stolen code. Well
actually it's not stolen code, it's an example of how we can find stolen code". "We are
not interested in hitting Linux users, this is strictly a matter between SCO and IBM. Oh
and by the way give us $699 or we'll sue you".

SCO are all over the place. One minute they state things as fact and as soon as
someone shoots them down they change their story. It stinks, it stiks really badly and I
can't believe that nothing can be done to nip it in the bud. For Instance, SCO has no
legally proven claim over ownership of the kernel (as they claim) yet they are
demanding pay now or pay more later. This in itself fits in with the concept of
extortion, i.e. demanding money with no proven legal basis for doing so. Until the case is
settled there's no way they should be able to threaten penalties for not complying with
their demands immeadiately.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that someone (IBM is the obvious candidate) should
find the fastest way of shutting them up until the court case proves one way or the
other (injunction perhaps) and then kill SCO off ASAP, publicly and painfully in a way
that will hurt SCO and act as a warning to any people or company that extort using
unsubstantaited claims. Besides, it's getting boring reading McBrides daily
pronouncements.