The Penguin Ping.
Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!
Got root?
Posted on 06/15/2003 4:54:20 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
According to eWEEK's confidential source, SCO's coders "basically re-implemented the Linux kernel with functions available in the Unix kernel to build what is now known as the Linux Kernel Personality (LKP) in SCO Unix."
The evidence for this seems to be sections of exact identical code right down to the variable names and comments. Gee, where have we heard claims like this, recently?
From SCO, claiming that Linux somehow contains bits of their holy Sys V code, that's where. How SCO could sue IBM after doing this is... simply, splutter, spit... nothing less than mind-blowingly, outrageous brass!
SCO might just give Eben Moglen of the Free Software Foundation what he has been seeking for years, a cornered victim willing opponent to test the enforceability of the GPL in court. In all previous instances, infringers have resolved their GPL related issues quietly.
If SCO really boosted source code from the Linux kernel to cobble up its "LKP" capability, enabling Linux applications to run under UnixWare(tm), and without including the Linux kernel's copyright notice, and licensing that facility under the GPL as required -- with all that entails -- then SCO is likely up to its scrawny neck in major copyright infringement.
Under the legal doctrine of "estoppel" (or "unclean hands", for layman), SCO could be found to have violated the same laws it seeks to employ. A different legal sense of "estoppel" prevents a litigant (and that would be SCO, in this dustup) from trying to litigate a claim already lost.
FR tech bump.
Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!
Got root?
Will ask the adm to delete the other duplicate!
We have:
___________________________________________________
Linux kernel coder puts SCO on notice
Exclusive As the worm turns
By : Sunday 15 June 2003, 17:57
It's perhaps worth noting in passing that over 400 individuals worldwide are credited as authors who have added significant contributions to the Linux kernel, and thousands of others have also contributed kernel code. All of these Linux kernel developers have the right to transmit similar demands to SCO, and possibly pursue lawsuits, as this email suggests.
The author of the following email isn't seeking any personal publicity, so information that might identify him has been redacted by request. µ
Sunday, 15 June 2003:
Sender information:
[snip]
Recipient information:
To: The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
Cc: SCO GmbH
Country Manager: Hans Bayer
Norsk-Data-Strasse 3
61352 Bad Homburg v.d.H
Sent via: E-Mail to licensing@sco.com, cc to infod@sco.com
NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
[If your are not the correct recipient for such a notice, please forward this letter to the appropriate recipient, and send me a notice that I can address further mails directly to the appropriate person. Thanks.]
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
I've noticed that the FTP server from your company contains the file linux-2.4.13-21D.src.rpm (md5 checksum: 73cad7e5db287a962de14109fa126354) in the directory /pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Workstation/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/ [1].
I'm the co-author and copyright owner of several parts of the source code that is contained in that file[2], among them [snip].
According to your press releases [3], the file also contains source code that you consider as your own property and that you did not license under the GPL.
I've granted everyone the right to sell, distribute and use my work under the condition that they obey the restriction of the GPL. The GPL requires that a work that is based on a works that is licensed under the GPL must be put under the GPL. I've never authorized any other use of my work.
This means that your distribution of the above given file, and any sale of OpenLinux 3.1.1, is not authorized by me and infringes my copyright.
I demand that you immediately cease and desist the distribution of the above listed file, and any other work that contains my work.
Additionally, I ask you to provide me with a detailed list that shows the amount of unauthorized distribution that happened in the past. As far as I can see, this includes at least any logs from your FTP server for the relevant directories, and a list of the sales of OpenLinux 3.1.1 and any other product that contains my work [4]. I reserve the right to sue you for damages and any profits you made by selling my work. Note that my work is not of U.S. origin, thus the lack of a formal registration at the USPTO does not bar me from filing an infringement suit. I also reserve the right to sue your subsidiary in Germany or any other subsidiary.
As an alternative, I'll abstain from suing you for copyright infringement if you drop your claims that the source in linux-2.4.13-21D.src.rpm infringes your copyright, for example by putting the part that you claim copyright on under the GPL. The exact details would have to be discussed [5].
Best regards,
[snip]
[1] i.e. the URL to the file is ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Workstation/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/linux-2.4.13-21D.src.rpm I've verified the existance of the file on Sat Jun 14 08:44:15 UTC 2003.
[2] Note that I'm not claiming to be the sole copyright owner, I did a significant improvement and partial rewrite of source code written by others.
[3] Among others, the press release titled "SCO Suspends Distribution of Linux Pending Intellectual Property Clarification; Announces Greater Focus on UNIX and SCOx Strategy".
[4] Virtually all of my contributions to the linux kernel are tagged with either my name ([snip]) or the email address [snip]. Thus you can easily identify the affected products with a global search on the uncompressed sources for these names.
[5] I'm only speaking for myself, I do not know what the other copyright owners will do.
See Also
_____________________________________________________________________________
 |
Is SCO Bluffing?
Its CEO says he's ready to go to the mat with IBM about Unix licensing. Here's what could happen and why.
By InformationWeek
June 12, 2003
URL: http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10300886
One hundred days after filing its lawsuit against IBM, the SCO Group Inc. says it's prepared Friday to take action against IBM for allegedly violating its Unix licensing contract by allegedly feeding Unix source code to the Linux community. If SCO Group can enforce its case against IBM—SCO says it has the right to revoke all AIX licenses—it may then turn its attention to other areas of the Linux market, including leading Linux distributor Red Hat Inc.
SCO Group's claims are potentially a huge threat to the IT industry, says Michael Collins, a technology lawyer with firm Beirne Maynard & Parson LLP. And Brian Ferguson, a partner with McDermott, Will & Emery, says SCO Group wants "to be able to wave around a new license from IBM."
When SCO Group on March 7 filed its $1 billion lawsuit against IBM, alleging that IBM improperly shared SCO Group's proprietary Unix technology with Linux developers, SCO Group also sent a letter to IBM giving the company 100 days to resolve the matter. June 13 is the end of that period. SCO Group says it has the right to cancel IBM's rights to Unix System V if an arrangement isn't reached.
It would be within SCO Group's rights to order every copy of AIX "destroyed," says Darl McBride, SCO Group's president and CEO. McBride acknowledges the situation isn't likely to come to that. In fact, he says, he'll leave different scenarios open to IBM. The most likely outcome, he says, is license payments.
AIX of course couldn't be somehow whisked off computers because of the conflict. "If you get your driver's license revoked, that doesn't mean you can't drive, but you're skating on thin ice. The morning of June 14, you'll have all of these companies driving without a license," McBride says.
IBM execs say SCO Group is blowing smoke about revoking the company's Unix license, and they're unlikely to take any action before Friday's deadline. IBM's rights to Unix are "irrevocable and perpetual," a spokeswoman says. The company isn't saying much more about the case. In a written response to the Utah district court where the suit was filed, IBM claims it's "fully paid up" regarding its license and hasn't "misappropriated or misused" the Unix source code.
It's a David-and-Goliath battle, Collins says. "David's got some pretty good weapons, a pretty accurate slingshot, but there's a lot of other work that David also has to do."
David, in this case, thinks it's done enough work to bring down IBM. It has identified the lines of code it says were copied from Unix to the Linux kernel. Although this code has been shown to a handful of analysts, SCO hasn't gone public, it says, in order to protect its intellectual property.
McBride says the existence of Unix source code in the Linux kernel puts Red Hat and other Linux distributors in the "hot seat." SCO Group is "focused on vendors that we have contracts with, because those are the easiest" to hold accountable, he says. A Red Hat spokeswoman says her company can't comment on the situation because Red Hat hasn't been contacted by SCO Group, nor has it been shown the code in question.
SCO Group's goal isn't to "chase every company that's selling Linux," McBride says. The goal is to get its fair share of revenue from its intellectual property.
It nonetheless would "behoove" Red Hat and companies that sell Linux-based products to sign SCO Group's nondisclosure agreement and "do the comparison," Collins says. "Red Hat, for example, doesn't want to be charged with willful copyright infringement. Now that SCO Group has put them on notice, it would be prudent for [Red Hat] to have their IP lawyers and programmers take a look at this."
Perhaps surprisingly, Linux player Sun Microsystems is golden in SCO's eyes. "The company that has the best standing with us is a company that's paid a lot of money to us over the years, and that's Sun Microsystems," McBride says.
In the mid-1990s, Sun paid more than $100 million to Novell for a Unix royalty buyout and the ability to redistribute the Unix source code in derivative works, he says. Novell owned the rights to Unix at the time. "Sun wanted to control their destiny related to derivative works," McBride says, while IBM paid $10 million to buy the rights to an older Unix. It allegedly didn't pay for the rights to bypass the owner of Unix on derivative works.
"Think of [Unix] System V as the trunk of a tree, with flavors such as AIX, Solaris, and HP-UX as branches," McBride says. Based on this model, there are two types of violations SCO Group is seeing today. The first is line-by-line code copying right into Linux, right down to the comment code. SCO Group has found the same comments in both Unix and Linux in some cases, he claims. The second violation relates to the Unix flavors. "We're finding code showing up in Linux that is coming from these branches," he says. "That is a straight-out violation of our contracts."
The whole controversy began in December, when the company found that some of its Dynamic Link Libraries were being copied into Linux, McBride says. SCO Group's response was to put together a licensing program to protect its intellectual property. This new license would extend a company's rights to the Unix code base, which has developed over time. Essentially, the new licensing program gives customers rights to versions through System V.
SCO Group distributed a proposal for this Unix licensing program to a number of vendors, including IBM, McBride says. For the most part, feedback was positive or neutral, he says. "The only company that had a violent reaction was IBM." According to McBride, IBM said that if the license plan wasn't dropped, IBM wouldn't do business with SCO and would encourage others to do the same. He says that after LinuxWorld in January, IBM followed through on its threats and stopped doing business with SCO Group.
This made SCO suspicious, so it began looking into IBM's use of Unix, McBride says. "It was disconcerting as to why IBM was so concerned about this," he says. So SCO started to do some digging into how IBM was using the intellectual property that they were licensing from SCO Group. McBride says it was like "pulling on a piece of string. This whole thing keeps unraveling, right down to the source code. We found significant problems with IBM, which led to the March lawsuit."
McBride says he and his company have become targets of both physical and virtual aggression. A man allegedly called his office to challenge him to a fistfight, he says. When McBride's secretary called back to get time and place, and the guy said he was just kidding. Someone also reportedly accessed an SCO Group conference call claiming to be Gartner analyst George Weiss, then said disparaging things about SCO Group. Soon after, the real George Weiss checked in to say it wasn't him. SCO has also been the target of denial-of-service attacks, McBride says.
The Linux business model was bound to change, and some people are having a hard time accepting this, he says. "The whole concept of getting something for nothing just doesn't hold up," he says. "The notion that you're going to run a Fortune 1,000 company on something that in the end could be more like Napster than an enterprise software system, it's a big question mark."
____________________________________________________________________
10/06/2003 08:25:59
The SCO Group Inc. has found what it says is proof that it owns all copyrights related to the Unix operating system, a claim rival Novell Inc. had contested last month and for which SCO may seek to recoup damages.
SCO said Friday the proof is in an amendment to the asset purchase agreement through which SCO acquired Unix from Novell in 1995. The amendment dates from 1996.
"Today we slammed the door shut on (this copyright question) and threw away the key once and for all, so this issue doesn't come up again," said Darl McBride, SCO's president and chief executive officer, in an interview.
Last month, Novell said it hadn't transferred Unix's copyrights nor patents to SCO as part of their Unix purchase agreement.
But in light of SCO's finding, Novell on Friday reluctantly acknowledged that the amendment "appears to support SCO's claim that ownership of certain copyrights for Unix did transfer to SCO in 1996." However, Novell reiterated its claim that it holds the Unix patents.
Novell's response has left SCO's McBride dissatisfied. He wants Novell to issue a clear retraction and to own up to its incorrect claim regarding Unix copyright ownership, which left it "with eggs all over its face," McBride said.
"It's not our desire to litigate with Novell, but we believe they do need to take responsibility for their improper actions and for the injury and harm they've done to us in the marketplace" by claiming SCO didn't own the Unix copyrights, McBride said.
SCO's legal team is looking into the matter and may advise the company to seek money from Novell for damages, McBride said.
On the question of patents, McBride said Novell's name isn't on the Unix patents, but rather AT&T Corp.'s, which is the company that first developed the operating system. The patents are enforced by the copyright holder, which in this case is SCO, McBride said.
Novell didn't return calls seeking comment.
At any rate, the companies are involved in nothing more than a war of words so far. Neither has raised the issue with a court.
The Unix product in question is Unix System V, which is the core Unix code which SCO owns and licenses to third-parties which then use it to create their own derivative Unix versions, such as Hewlett-Packard Co.'s HP-UX, IBM Corp.'s AIX and Sun Microsystems Inc.'s Solaris.
Novell, based in Provo, Utah, launched its challenge last month in order to poke holes into SCO's legal challenges against the open-source Linux operating system. SCO has made allegations that Unix code it owns has been illegally copied into Linux software, including the Linux operating system kernel.
In Friday's statement, Novell again reiterated its demand that SCO present evidence to back up its allegations. SCO's McBride said the company has already begun showing its evidence to analysts, customers and other industry players.
So far, SCO, based in Lindon, Utah, has only formally sued one company over Unix and Linux: IBM. In March, SCO sued IBM, seeking at least US$1 billion, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, contract interference and breach of contract, in attempts to damage Unix to benefit its Linux business.
Related to the case, McBride said SCO has also found evidence of AIX code having been copied into Linux software.
SCO has purposefully decided not to proceed with a copyright or patent violation charge against IBM, or anybody else for that matter so far, because it believes the avenue it has taken against IBM puts it on much stronger legal ground, its executives have said.
SCO also warned commercial Linux vendors of possible liabilities. It has also sent letters to about 1,500 large companies warning them they could be held liable for intellectual property violations related to their use of Linux software, and issued the same warning to commercial users in general via a press release last month. The warning has outraged and concerned many commercial Linux users.
SCO has no intention to sue commercial users, and will try every option before resorting to litigation, McBride said. "We plan to work out the issues with customers in a short, straightfoward and amicable way."
SCO has been receiving feedback from commercial users and is developing licensing programs to resolve any issues. SCO plans to detail those new programs aimed at commercial users in July, McBride said.
It also expects to resolve issues with commercial Linux vendors, such as Red Hat Inc. and SuSE Linux AG, "in ways short of litigation," he said.
I've been watching CNBC this morning and have seen no mention of this. Anyone else?
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.