SCO To Release Disputed Linux Code This Week (Latest on the SCO/UNIX/IBM & now Novell catfight)

Internetweek.com ^ | Monday, June 2, 2003 | Antone Gonsalves

[NotQuiteCricket]

SCO Group, embroiled in a bitter legal dispute over Linux, indicated Friday it could take legal action against software maker Novell, and said it plans to release this week proprietary code that has been copied in the open source operating system.

SCO chief executive Darl McBride told analysts and reporters in a teleconference that the company would release "hundreds of lines of code" that prove its claims.

"The month of June is show-and-tell time," he said. "Everybody's been clamoring for the code -- show us two lines of code. We're not going to show two lines of code, we're going to show hundreds of lines of code. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of what's in this."

The code would be available to Unix users, analysts and the media under a confidentiality agreement. Such an arrangement, however, could prevent publication of the controversial code.

McBride also said that SCO had turned over to its attorneys a letter recently sent by Novell, claiming it owns the Unix intellectual property rights claimed by SCO.

"We strongly disagree on Novell's position and view it as a desperate measure to curry favor with the Linux community," McBride said in reading a statement at the beginning of the news conference. "I have turned the Novell letter over to our attorneys, and in the coming weeks, we will take all steps that we deem appropriate to rectify the issues."

[NotQuiteCricket]

goes from bad to worse, to what? worser? rotflmao. Next week SCO is going to announce that it is going to sue everyone for breathing their air.

[jdege]

How much you want to bet that the "Unix" code that SCO claims is in Linux is code that SCO swiped from FreeBSD or other free sources in violation of its copyright?

[Reelect President Dubya]

I smell a Geraldo Revera moment coming up.

[NotQuiteCricket]

I'm not taking any bets on any of this stuff. UNIX has been around for so long, and has been owned by so many people, that who knows who owns it? What if there is some lone programmer off somewhere who wrote almost the same function/routine whatever it is they are whining about independently? In that case, I would think that the contract thing is shaky and if Novell isn't going to force the patent issue, SCO doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[KarlInOhio]

I smell a Geraldo Revera moment coming up.

Linus Torvald's vault or the release of the top secret Linux operational plan?

As quickly as SCO releases any violations, they will either be rebutted or the offending code will be rewritten within a week. SCO might (but it's unlikely) have a case on old versions. They will have no case for new versions and they know it.

[Reelect President Dubya]

It's going to be very interesting to see what they sue Novell for.

[B Knotts]

The code would be available to Unix users, analysts and the media under a confidentiality agreement. Such an arrangement, however, could prevent publication of the controversial code.

So, actually...they're not going to release it.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"Next week SCO is going to announce that it is going to sue everyone for breathing their air."

How dare they. It's not their air. It's Microsoft's.

[justlurking]

The code would be available to Unix users, analysts and the media under a confidentiality agreement.

I'm a Unix user.

SCO: Show me the code, or shut the hell up.

[bcoffey]

"we're going to show hundreds of lines of code"

I have to admit I'm underwhelmed... just "hundreds of lines" out of how many hundreds of thousands?

On the other hand, some 35 years ago, I coded the following.

A = B + C

Perhaps I should file a lawsuit? </sarcasm>

[justlurking]

Such an arrangement, however, could prevent publication of the controversial code.

I posted this inquiry on another thread about this, but I'll ask again here.

What does SCO expect to gain by refusing to publicly disclose the details of the questionable code?

The offending code is not going to "disappear". There are too many permanent archival sources that could never be erased.

Think about it for a while and one can probably start to guess at their true motives.

[cartographer]

What strikes me the most about this is that the alleged violations are bits of code that have found their way into Linux. In other words, that very code is sitting on the hard drives of however many millions of machines which have downloaded a Linux kernel or have a copy of the source on CD. So why not make the violations public?

[B Knotts]

The answer is simple. They have no case; they are engaging in legal harassment in a desparate attempt to get IBM to buy them out.

[dfrussell]

I worked for a company who owned a source code license for Unix, have seen lots of the source and at the time it was written in "C".

I haven't bothered to look at the linux source, but it's my understanding that it's C++

While C and C++ share some syntax, they are used in very different ways... the "++" part :)

Given the hundreds of thousands / millions of lines of code involved, for a company to claim copyright infringement on an alleged similarity of a few hundred lines of code is stretching very hard :)

If linux wasn't eating a large piece of Mr. Gates lunch, this wouldn't be an issue... and lawsuits certainly aren't going to increase SCOs installation base.

[justlurking]

I haven't bothered to look at the linux source, but it's my understanding that it's C++

Some of it might be. Some of the open source applications that are typically installed on a Linux system are certainly written in C++.

But, I believe most of Linux is C -- at least the parts I've looked at. C and C++ can coexist (I've done it in another OS), so it's not unreasonable to write significant portions in C++, as long as the C++ constructs are abstracted from the rest of the OS written in C.

[NotQuiteCricket]

So, do I have this right:

Novell owns copyrights and patents for UNIX.

SCO's claims (agains IBM) center on its contracts giving companies the right to build Unix software & not on copyrights or patents.

In addition: SCO claims the Linux kernel...contains chunks of code covered by the company's unix patents.

This kinda' looks like 2+2=Z (where z<>4) If Novell owns THE unix patents (and that is what their letter claimed) then the letter that SCO sent out to users was bogus.

This is almost like watching the Monica thingy. Right about now, Novell pulled out the blue dress (they own the patents) right after the Democrats (SCO) started blathering about patent infringment & IP violations (you remember the "Monica is a crazed stalker" talking point?).

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"I believe most of Linux is C --"

For a fraction of a second I thought you meant "C--" -- a very intersting language, BTW.

[justlurking]

For a fraction of a second I thought you meant "C--" -- a very intersting language, BTW.

I noticed that after the posting, otherwise I would have edited it.

I've never heard of C--, though. Do you mean C#?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

No, not C#. C--.

Check out http://www.cminusminus.org

Best,