Inside the Linux arcana (ZDNet) [LWN.net]

Inside the Linux arcana (ZDNet)

Posted Mar 18, 2004 18:03 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]

So, let me get this straight:

All these machinations through which this guy works his way tell us what? That all the people who have been freely contributing their code to Linux under the GPL have no right to it? That the rules they set down when they copyrighted their works are invalid?

Give me a break. You can whine and moan about pedigree all you want, but the only effect any of these cases have, in the long run, will be what specific stuff has to be removed from Linux. That's all. Maybe if some of the contributors mistakenly (or by design) used code that was inappropriately copied, those individuals will be responsible for correcting the problem and/or paying damages. But that's all.

It looks like this guy is banking his whole article on the question "What's on that face-down card over there?" Great way to get web-site hits, but I've seen this kind of silliness far too often in my life.

Inside the Linux arcana (ZDNet)

Posted Mar 18, 2004 19:00 UTC (Thu) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

I don't think that's what hes saying. I don't think he talking much at all about Linux code base. I think he's questioning whether anybody has any right to restrict freely copying the UNIX code base because of the incestuous nature of UNIX development and historic agreement that were struck. For instance when talking about BSD:

The arrangement is best summed up by a passage found on the OpenBSD Web site that says, "while AT&T holds the copyrights to much 'Unix' code and documentation, OpenBSD is based largely on Berkeley (BSD) distributions that contain only material known to be free of AT&T copyrights, or material to which AT&T has abandoned its copyright or included licensing terms similar to the Berkeley terms. No material subject to restrictive AT&T copyrights can be included in OpenBSD."

He seems to say that AT&T agreed to license all their copyrighted contributions in OpenBSD under a "free" license but when the case was settled in January 1994 and the terms were sealed no one knows. He's pointing to "smoking guns" that backs his position that SCO bought the "Brooklyn Bridge". Insiders knew it was the "Brooklyn Bridge" but as long as it wasn't general knowledge AT&T could still get customers to pay for licensing fees.

Inside the Linux arcana (ZDNet)

Posted Mar 18, 2004 21:47 UTC (Thu) by mongre26 (guest, #4224) [Link]

I find little in this article that is accurate or compelling. In fact it is a chore to read. The auther draws conclusions based on contracts and claims no one has even seen. There is no gun to smoke, just wild claims and long winded conspiracy.

I noticed also the author buys into the SCO line that 1992 and the USL v Berkeley lawsuit is the issue at hand. I hardly need to mention that 1992 serves SCO very well since the documents are sealed, thus allowing them to make any wild claim they wish. The author completely fails to mention that to date SCO has yet to even bring a complaint, in court, of any copyright infringement with the exception of the laughable ammendment claiming IBM is violating their purported copyrights by distributing AIX between June 2003 and today.

The author simply buys into the SCO line that this is a copyright dispute and thus 1992 is what is relevant. He also makes some claim that the GPL itself is somehow at risk, again an unfounded SCO claim that the author simply repeats.

The problem with the who article is that there is no copyright suit, there never has been in court. As Eben Moglen points out as far as copyright is concerned this case is barren. Every one of the lawsuits SCO has filed is based on contract disputes with current or former customers. What happened in 1992 between USL and Berkely is not what is relevant. What is much more important to the SCO v IBM contract suit is the echo $ newsletter and subsequent contracts like Chryslers in 1998.

The authors long winded conspiracy tale also jumps from BSD to Linux without making even a tenuous link between the code, accepting that Linux is UNIX(tm) is a fact. Well I am sorry but that so called fact, despite what SCO continues to claim, is very much in dispute. In fact I will for as far as to say that Linux is not UNIX and the CEO of Novell, the current owner of "UNIX(tm)" agrees with me.

(http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040317191931269)

No, all I see in this article is an attempt to follow SCO's line of reasoning with a little Sun conspiracy put in there for flavour. I am going to file this away as yet another long winded fluff piece meant to get page hits on what has become not a legal battle but a spectator sport where just mentioning the SCO lawsuit(s) gets you thousands of page views.

His claims that there is some potential risk to the GPL that suddenly Linux would magically have the GPL removed is also laughable and underscores his inability to grasp even the simplest of concepts under copyright. The author really has no idea what is going on yet writes for page after page in the hope that if he cannot blind us with brilliance he can baffles us by shear weight of his bull excrement.

I think I will stick to groklaw.net for my information regarding the ongoing SCO journey to obscurity. At least at groklaw.net they have the integrity to actual post real court documents and actual contracts before they write their analysis.

Inside the Linux arcana (ZDNet)

Posted Mar 19, 2004 3:42 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

> The author completely fails to mention that to date SCO has yet to even bring a complaint, in court, of any copyright infringement with the exception of the laughable ammendment claiming IBM is violating their purported copyrights by distributing AIX between June 2003 and today.

I like this part best. IBM is violating the copyrights of SCO because SCO terminated IBM licence (which Novell reinstated, BTW) based on IBM's trade secret violations that SCO dropped from their own suit. Once Darl is out as a CEO of SCO, I'm sure he'll make it as a stand-up comedian :-)

Darl's next job

Posted Mar 19, 2004 18:03 UTC (Fri) by The_Flatlander (guest, #19245) [Link]

>> Once Darl is out as a CEO of SCO, I'm sure he'll make it as a stand-up comedian. <<

Well, maybe, but I'm afraid I was thinking more like politician.... [grinds teeth].

Darl's next job

Posted Mar 25, 2004 11:42 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

Stand up politician? Never seen one...

Inside the Linux arcana (ZDNet)

Posted Mar 25, 2004 15:23 UTC (Thu) by mly (guest, #2171) [Link]

In fact I will for as far as to say that Linux is not UNIX and the CEO of Novell, the current owner of "UNIX(tm)" agrees with me.

Novell is not the current owner of the UNIX trademark as far as I have understood.

The Open Group claims that "UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group." See http://www.opengroup.org/legal.htm#trademarks

In http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/history_timeline.html the Open Group states:

Late 1993    Novell transfers rights to the "UNIX" trademark 
             and the Single UNIX Specification to X/Open.

On the other hand, this is not exctly what the US Patent and Trademark Office claims about the UNIX trademark for computer systems:

(REGISTRANT) AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY CORPORATION NEW YORK
550 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK NEW YORK 10022

(LAST LISTED OWNER) UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES, INC. CORPORATION ASSIGNEE OF 
DELAWARE 295 NORTH MAPLE AVENUE BASKING RIDGE NEW JERSEY 07920

As far as I can understand from a USPTO web search, the only trademark actually registered to The Open Group is "The Open Group" (R), even though their website indicates that this isn't registered. Additionally, it's predecessor X/Open has registered "X", "X/Open", "ONC", "MAKING STANDARDS WORK" and "O".

The Open Group also claims ownership of the "registered" trademarks OSF/1 and Motif. According to USPTO, both these where owned by The Open Software Foundation, but cancelled in 2001!

It seems several players in this big game hasn't really done their paper work properly...