Posted on 08/01/2006 5:19:27 AM PDT by ShadowAce
I have some pictures to show you. They should knock your socks off. They should knock SCO's socks off, too, and then they should knock a huge chunk out of SCO's case. I'm quite serious. Here is what three individuals have now written to me, with screenshots to prove what they have found:
SCO is right now itself distributing the ELF headers files it is suing IBM over. They are available to the public with no legal notice, from SCO's FTP site, and furthermore, the license on the files is the GPL.
Let me show you, please.
First, let's review what SCO has claimed. In this document, Exhibit G [PDF], which was attached to a letter from SCO attorney Brent Hatch to IBM attorney Todd Shaughnesy dated 4-19-04, in turn attached to the Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy [PDF] in support of IBM's cross motion for partial summary judgment on its claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement back in the spring of 2004, SCO listed ELF headers files from binutils and it claimed the following:
1. SCO, as the copyright owner of source code and/or documentation upon which the following files and lines of code were copied or derived, has never contributed or authorized these lines of code or the documentation related thereto, for use in Linux as specified under part 0, or any other provision, of the GPL.
2. SCO, as the copyright owner of source code and/or documentation upon which the following files and lines of code were copied or derived, has never granted a license to any party that knowingly authorized use of these files or lines of code outside a UNIX-based distribution.
Never. Never ever, ever? You promise? Or were you crossing your fingers behind your back when you said that?
Then their expert mentioned ELF too. In SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion to Confine SCO's Claims to, and Strike Allegations in Excess of, The Final Disclosures [PDF], SCO summarized Dr. Thomas Cargill's conclusions:
Dr. Thomas Cargill, a software consultant and former computer science professor and UNIX developer, concludes in his report that Linux 2.4 and 2.6 and LiS Streams (collectively "Linux") are substantially similar to the Unix System V Release 4 operating system ("SVr4"), and therefore, that Linux infringes copyrights of SVr4. (Ex. 3 at 3.) In reaching this conclusion, and by applying the applicable legal test, he further opines that Linux is a substantial copy of UNIX System V Release 4 ("SVr4") because it appropriated the essential structure of UNIX by incorporating (1) many of the "system calls" in SVr4; (2) the SVr4 file system; (3) the ELF format; and (4) the Streams communication module. (Id. at 3-4.)
Methinks he needs to looks at the pictures I'm about to show you, and then it's back to the drawing board for one expert.
If you look on the list of files SCO has in Exhibit G, beginning on page 5, look for files beginning with binutils, and you'll see them there. So SCO is claiming ownership of those files.
Now, if you, SCO and Dr. Cargill will all please step this way, let's see what SCO is offering on ftp://ftp2.sco.com/pub/skunkware/src/misc/binutils-2.8.1.tar.gz. Note it's an FTP site, and so if you don't wish to download a tarball, don't go there, but what you'll find there is all the listed files. Here is a picture of what you see, if like me, you'd prefer that SCO not collect your IP address and so don't wish to visit personally:
There it is, binutils, top of the list. Do you see any legal notice restricting downloads? Me either. When Ariel first sent me that information, I frankly couldn't believe it. But two other folks sent me the same, confirming that indeed binutils are there available on the site and they are listed with the GPL as the license. I asked them to carefully check to be certain that no legal notice was there, and all three say they saw no notice.
I asked Ariel to briefly please explain what binutils is and what is its relationship to the kernel:
binutils is a user-level set of tools used as a backend to compilers. It includes: ar(1), nm(1), objcopy(1), objdump(1), readelf(1) and the GNU linker (ld).
Essentially, SCO is talking about the kernel, but the _same_ ELF header files are needed in binutils because these utilities need to know how to _generate_ the ELF executables which are later executed by the kernel. The header files are inside the tarball 'binutils-2.8.1.tar.gz' which is at the top of the list. This is essentially a _full_ ELF specification and implementation.
Is there a notice of anything? Well, the tarball includes the GNU standard "COPYING" file which includes the full text of:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Also, the file is placed under a directory /pub which is the conventional place for "public" stuff, not protected by any password.
Now, ELF hasn't changed, I'm told, for a long time, so these older files, which appear to have been there since 2001, if you notice the date, are likely the same as any newer files. But for sure the methods and concepts are out there, and they have been demonstrably at least since 2001, and the files on this FTP site are clearly available to be used in Linux, because anything that is GPL'd can be used in any GNU/Linux distribution.
Two years ago this very month, Groklaw debunked SCO's ELF claims on other equally devastating to SCO grounds, as well as separately debunking their ABI claims. If you read the ELF story, you will learn that ELF was put in the public domain. It's a standard. And of course there is a major question mark over SCO's claim that it even has any copyrights to sue with. But this last -- that SCO is still distributing ELF and under the GPL -- is truly the cherry on top.
Actually, not only is there no notice not to download, they actually offer and encourage you to get from them a CD with binutils and all the ELF header files on it:
Someone may say that SCO didn't know any better, that the current management has no clue that binutils-2.8.1 includes a full implementation of reading, generating, and manipulating ELF files. In fact, that was SCO's original alibi, back in Exhibit G:
3. All of the following files or lines of code, or files and lines similar thereto, have appeared in major releases of Linux, and have also appeared in SCO's redistributions of Linux. At the time it redistributed Linux, SCO was not aware that its intellectual property had been copied or misappropriated and placed into Linux without SCO's authorization or consent.
Then SCO listed the binutils files, one by one, binutils-2.14/bfd/elf-bfd.h onward. So at least by the time they made up the list, they knew.
Now, it being 2006, there's no mistake here. They are not distributing without realizing what they are releasing is under the GPL. They say so. The GPL is right there in the binutils package in the copying file. I think it speaks to the truthfulness of Exhibit G's claim that SCO never knowingly distributed ELF under the GPL, but even if they were all clueless as a brick, they certainly knew by the time they made up the list. So they can't now say they *still* don't realize they are releasing these files under the GPL. It's not 2004 any more. It's 2006.
Others have now confirmed for me that the binutils download has a GPL COPYING notice and no special notice from SCO (or anyone else) restricting anything and say that it
contains (inter alia) header files with all the ELF magic numbers and structures. That means, to me, that SCO can't sue anybody over ELF from this day forward. Period. Game over. We'll see if they agree.
Interestingly if you check the copyrights in the files currently downloadable, you will find those BFD files are not copyrighted to SCO, even if they were not GPL'd. They are copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation. Here's the notice:
/* ELF support for BFD.
Copyright (C) 1991, 92, 93, 95, 1997 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Written by Fred Fish @ Cygnus Support, from information published
in "UNIX System V Release 4, Programmers Guide: ANSI C and
Programming Support Tools".
But they had no right, SCO may exclaim. Too late. If ever they had a complaint, it should have been in 1991, and in any case, having released the files since 2001 -- WITH THAT VERY COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- it's obvious that SCO at the time and all these years since had absolutely no objection. Besides that, the article we did on ELF two years ago told them specifically that binutils included ELF and that it was available from SCO's website back then in 2004, a year after they'd filed their lawsuit. And here it is again, two years later. Can they plead ignorance? I don't think so. Incompetence maybe. Sloth. But how can they claim ignorance?
Is it the end of the ELF claims? It should be, I would think. If it isn't, and SCO doesn't drop this claim, frankly I think the word frivolous is going to be entering the discussion in a courtroom in Utah, as I think it should. If AutoZone ever rises from the dead, it is pertinent there as well.
And what, pray tell, might the moral of this story be? To me, it's that once again the GPL has proven itself to be the MVP of the SCO wars. I hope none of you ever forgets that someone had the foresight many years ago to plan for the SCO's of this world. Richard Stallman was villified, sneered at, mocked and attacked for designing the GPL back then. But look at it now. Look quite seriously at what GPLv2 has accomplished. And when you do, please think about that legal foresight he demonstrated and then extrapolate. Are you quite sure GPLv3 isn't also legal foresight? In any case, while you are all free to reach your own conclusions, there is one unchangeable, undeniable fact. There is some water under the legal bridge now, and it wasn't superior technology that saved Linux from SCO. It was the GPL that played a major role in keeping this GNU/Linux boat afloat in the face of SCO's attack.
I'm actually surprised you brought this up, as it tends to push you further into extremism--as it relates to other posters here.
For instance, Linus' explanation about his objections to GPLv3 mirrors a lot of what FReepers have been saying:
So I think the GPLv3 is a wonderful license if you want to ignore all the good things Linux stands for. If you just want to push your own moral agenda, the GPLv3 is great. But if you want to have fun, work with people, and just get the best damn product out there, and do so while everybody thinks that what they are doing is "fair", the GPLv3 sucks.So, as you can see from the above snippet of his post, Linus, like most of us, does not see OSS as some kind of "religious war" as you try to make us out to believe in. The GPL (v2) is merely organizing payment for effort as a "quid pro quo" rather than monetary as you'd prefer.The GPLv3 is designed to take the FSF back to its original "good old days", when "Free Software" was a war, and rms was its protelyzing general. But the fact is, it's not a war, and peaceful and happy co-existence is actually much preferable to moral jihads.
And that's why I think the GPLv2 is much better. It allows us all to agree to just work together, without making it a religion. Linux was a big reason Open Source isn't "religious" (and why it's called "Open Source" and not "Free Software" - exactly to avoid the bad old religious dats), and GPLv3 is trying to turn the clock back.
But then, you just can't understand that, can you?
LOL, the question is why didn't mr. jokelaw himself bring it up.
Linus, like most of us, does not see OSS as some kind of "religious war"
So he says, but at least he's willing to call Stallman "insane" which is a lot more than I ever see from you.
The GPL (v2) is merely organizing payment for effort as a "quid pro quo" rather than monetary as you'd prefer.
Which requires lawyers to sort it out, instead of banks. You sound just like PJ, the supposed paralegal that made her name off Linux's legal woes.
I normally don't read Groklaw comments because that's not the real purpose of the site, and PJ is a Stallman follower.
But when pointed out posts, I'm always happy to see that a lot of Groklaw readers do not follow the Stallman line that PJ has swallowed. OTOH, some of the comments lead me to believe that the DRM clause may be just poorly worded, leading Linus to believe as he does.
Personally, I think you call it Jokelaw because it digs up too much factual, provable evidence against your beloved SCO's fight against Linux. This bit about ELF is a classic example of SCO's need to lie to support its case.
Market slide: SCO Group's stock falls to $2.28 per share
In the months after the SCO Group's Linux-related lawsuit against IBM was filed nearly three and a half years ago, the tiny Utah software company saw its stock soar tenfold.
But on Tuesday the Lindon company's stock was a long way from its October 2003 high of $20.50 per share. After a sustained slide fed by sustained poor earnings results and courthouse reversals, SCO shares closed Tuesday at $2.28 per share.
That was 2 cents per share lower than the company's stock sold for on March 25, 2003. That was the same day SCO, alleging IBM had transferred SCO's proprietary Unix code into its Linux releases, filed its $5 billion complaint against Big Blue in Salt Lake City's U.S. District Court.
On June 27, the day before U.S. Magistrate Brooke Wells gutted two-thirds of SCO's nearly 300 allegations against IBM, shares traded at $4.17. Coming on the heels of SCO's more than doubling its second-quarter losses, to $4.7 million, investors apparently began to lose heart. Prices - stable for some weeks around $4 - resumed their tumble.
SCO spokesman Blake Stowell declined comment. Investors contacted either refused to go on record about the company's market woes, or in the case of SCO's two largest stockholders - Ralph Yarro, also board chairman, and Glenn Krevlin of Glenhill Capital - did not immediately return calls.
Market-watchers said Tuesday that unless SCO succeeds in getting U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball to review and overturn Wells - a rare occurrence - it appears the company's future will be dismal.
"This is now no more than a case study, albeit a very important one, for the software industry," said Stuart Cohen, CEO of the pro-Linux Open Source Development Labs. "It shows that Linux and open source [freely distributed] software are bigger than any one company. "Linux has won in the courts and is winning in the marketplace. SCO . . . is dead. This plan [of litigation] didn't work at all, and now they are paying the price."
Gordon Haff, Illuminata Inc. anaylst, agreed, saying SCO's strategy appeared to have been one of "throwing out a wide range of claims and allegations in the hope that at least one will stick."
He, too, saw Linux - increasingly seen as an alternative to Windows - as having grown only stronger from SCO's challenge to its programming integrity.
"It's always hard to prove a negative, to state categorically that Linux adoption wasn't hurt in some way and to some degree," Haff said. "But Linux's continued popularity and adoption certainly suggest that any harm was relatively limited and temporary."
George Weiss of Gartner Inc. observed that SCO's stock slide, at least in part, may be linked to lagging interest in the Unix-based products SCO offers in favor of improved applications emerging from various flavors of Linux.
"It's nothing definitive, but one [information technology] manager told me that their application vendor is abandoning SCO and leaving the user in the lurch," Weiss said. "Effectively, he will be forced to migrate, most likely to Linux."
Such doubts, if widespread, "could be a factor influencing stock analysts who like to monitor the vendor's channel," he added.
---------------------------------------------------
In A.D. 2101, war was beginning . . .
Captain: What happen?
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Operator: We get signal.
Captain: What !
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Captain: It's You !!
Cats: How are you gentlemen !!
Cats: All your base are belong to us.
Cats: You are on the way to destruction.
Captain: What you say !!
Cats: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Cats: HA HA HA HA ....
Captain: Take off every 'zig' !!
Captain: You know what you doing.
Captain: Move 'zig'.
Captain: For great justice.
Notice also that SCO yanked the ELF files in question right after the initial Groklaw article.
SCO apparently hasn't learned that you can't make things disappear from reality by deleting them from your Web site. We have the record, it's proven. I hope IBM is watching so they can use this in court.
I expect you will find this hard to believe, but SCO is *still* distributing ELF from its website, and yes, it's still under the GPL.It is true, I guess. You really can't fix stupid.
The other day, I told you that SCO was distributing binutils, which includes ELF, in its Skunkworks package. Following that article's publication, SCO removed that binutils from the FTP site we pointed to. Now, a couple of readers inform us that binutils is still available in their gnutools package for OpenServer 5, which is freely available to the public, with no legal notice that it's only for prior customers. Not only that, but it's binutils-2.14, which is the version I believe SCO listed.Don't click unless you intend to immediately have it download, but it's at ftp:// ftp.sco.com/pub/openserver5/opensrc/source/gnutools-5.0.7Kj-SRC.tar.bz2. It's an FTP site, so it will begin to download automatically, if you click on the link. No warning. No password, no legal notice.
Don't everybody go there, please. They'll call a press conference and pretend they were DOS'd or something ridiculous. That url is for proof, not so you all download. The proof is already accomplished.
As you'll recall from the prior article on this, SCO has claimed the following in the SCO v. IBM litigation:
1. SCO, as the copyright owner of source code and/or documentation upon which the following files and lines of code were copied or derived, has never contributed or authorized these lines of code or the documentation related thereto, for use in Linux as specified under part 0, or any other provision, of the GPL.2. SCO, as the copyright owner of source code and/or documentation upon which the following files and lines of code were copied or derived, has never granted a license to any party that knowingly authorized use of these files or lines of code outside a UNIX-based distribution.
Well, that's not so, obviously. In fact, SCO can't seem to *stop* distributing it under the GPL. The way I understand the GPL works is this: by redistributing these files from SCO's own FTP server, SCO is itself distributing the files under the GPL. It's either that or it is guilty of copyright violation, and for years, judging from the timestamps. I wonder how many violating downloads there were. What is the penalty under copyright law for each violation again? Pick your poison, SCO.
Anyway, it's obvious to me that what they told the court about never authorizing or distributing binutils under the GPL is just not at all true. The copyright on gnutools, by the way, belongs to the Free Software Foundation, which gives SCO no right to redistribute the package under any license but the GPL. I guess if the FSF wants to sue SCO to collect all that money, if SCO pretends in court that this distribution wasn't under the GPL, they should be able to.
Is it plausible SCO doesn't know that gnutools includes binutils, which includes ELF? First, SCO has a duty to check that it isn't violating anybody's precious most holy intellectual property, n'est-ce pas? Then SCO sold Linux for a living for years, both as Caldera and as SCO, so it certainly ought to know, not to mention that it was SCO that put gnutools up on the FTP server. The COPYING file, dated January of 1999, informs us that the package is licensed under the GPL. SCO had a duty to check that. People in glass houses and all that.
I have to ask myself this: if SCOfolk thought this case was ever going to make it to trial, would they be this careless? Or maybe it's true: you can't fix stupid.
That's about as much as I understand from this article.
As an executive summary, SCO is suing IBM for doing something it itself is doing. It pretty much destroys their case.
We've been busy in the last week or two demonstrating that SCO is still distributing items it is suing over, like ELF and binutils. Why so modest a scope? SCO is still, three plus years after suing IBM, distributing the entire Linux kernel under the GPL right here: ftp://ftp.iso.caldera.com/pub/skunkware/contrib-3.1.1-10-20011130.isoAnother update on the fiaSCO....This is like reporting on the Keystone Kops. I guess we can now call SCO the KeySCO Kops.
Here's what our informant tells us:This is the ISO image that contains Linux kernel source and binary RPMs under EXTRA/RPMS and EXTRA/SRPMS. The current disk image is dated April 1, 2004; the difference from the previous version is the removal of nmap (after Fyodor's request that SCO not distribute nmap any more).The ftp.iso.caldera.com site doesn't have any of the "Legal Notice" files that have been strewn about in some other places. The "freely distributed" is inside the ISO, in the file README (also attached here). The relevant snippet is
"This CD is freely distributed. An ISO image is freely downloadable from http://www.caldera.com/support/contrib/ and it is freely included in media kits. The owners of some components do not permit commercial resale, so you cannot charge for copying those components, and therefore you cannot sell or resell this CD. However, most components, including all components licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL), do not prohibit you from copying, modifying and/or reselling those components, for any price you want. See the individual COPYING, LICENSE or README files for a component for specifics with regard to licensing and redistribution of that component."Of course, the Linux packages come with the GPL, but this snippet mainly just shows that this CD is not restricted to existing customers, and was not intended to be so restricted. It's "freely distributed," "freely downloadable," "freely included in media kits."
So the date, April of 2004 and the change, removing nmap, shows that SCO knows what is in here and it still distributed it long after it sued IBM.
All that is missing is a little running around madly music.
WTF?
;->
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.