Posted on 06/18/2003 4:12:48 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
'License' is not a difficult term to understand. Most everyone has a 'driver's license'. It gives you certain permissions, but actually has more provisions than rights.
I would find it almost impossible to believe that ATT (and subsequent lineage) ever granted a license to the Unix source code that allowed the licensee to take the source code and re-release it under a different name, and under a different license that claimed it was free to further copy.
To use your sensationalism, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard anyone purporting to be an expert on the issue claim.
That depends on where they came from. Are these comments in the POSIX spec? Were they in BSD 4.2? Laura doesn't know. SCO doesn't know. Those who do say that SCO might be claiming ownership of something that isn't theirs at all, which would be fraud, and in this case, attempted extortion. It's going to be a fun case.
I'm sure you're aware that you are selectively quoting the people who said what you wanted said, and that there are other quotes out there by people who also saw the SCO code and who say they found nothing to indicate infringement. So at a minimum, you are trying to throw snow in our eyes. Please stop.
You are? Got a single link to a respected publication?
1st -- for small code segments (single line) it happens that for simple statements there are often only a few ways to do something. Different developers will then do the same thing. And since many developers working on Unix cut their teeth on the K&R book, they will use identical coding styles, variable naming approaches, etc.
2nd -- the POSIX standard specifies API calls, the parameters and the return values. This will apply limitations on different developers coding to the same standard. Big suprise (not!) if they use identical variable names and coding constructs in such cases.
3rd - SCO needs to prove that their developers did not lift code from IBM! For example, as has been previously posted, IBM acquired assets from Sequent. Sequent was a multiprocessing pioneer and had a Unix variant. IBM may well have incorporated such code into AIX. Did some SCO developers several years ago "lift" the code from AIX and drop it into SCO Unix, where such code then ended up in Linux via IBM (completely legitimately)? Be sure any issues like this will be examined in court.
4th -- SCO had access to a Linux variant and was modifying and releasing that variant. It is possible that a SCO developer took SCO Unix code and placed it into their Linux variant. Once done, the GPL would apply. If an IBM developer then took that Linux code (inserted by a SCO developer) and modified it and released it back into Linux, the GPL still applies and SCO has no case.
All 4 of these possibilities point out absolutely legitimate ways where there can be identical code fragements in Linux and SCO Unix, but where SCO has no legal basis for their position. To reiterate, the 4 legitimate possibilities are:
(a) Normal coincidental duplication. Happens for small code fragments when solving identical problems.
(b) Cause by similar approaches to meeting the POSIX standard.
(c) SCO developers guilty of inserting IP into SCO Unix several years back that may have belonged to IBM, when IBM then places the code into Linux the "duplication" appears.
(d) SCO developers place SCO Unix code into Linux themselves, IBM then modifies and enhances that section of Linux, SCO claims IBM guilty of the duplication -- but actually due to SCO itself!
Since I have pointed out 4 possible ways that code duplication could have occurred, any shouting of GUILTY! GUILTY! will have to wait until the court case and the source control libraries are produced from the archives.
And it looks (to me) like it is a strong case, as they are now even giving more background into where some of the infringing code may have originated from, such as "RCU": (http://news.com.com/2100-1016-1017965.html)
Other common indicators of guilt besides direct evidence are opportunity, and motive, both of which IBM clearly has. So far all the momentum is all on SCO's side, their stock has soared 1000% since this all started.
Um,
"After examining the programming code that SCO Group claims was copied from Unix (news - web sites) into Linux (news - web sites ), Aberdeen Group analyst Bill Claybrook said he cannot conclude whether or not SCO's legal claims of copyright infringement have merit. "
*Someone* here is spreading their FUD pretty thinly. :-)
And this is from the 'Aberdeen Group' -- aren't they the folks who brought us the famous "Windows TCO cheaper than Linux" study?
If *they* can't make a case . . .
!
I'm guessing you're *not* in the software industry, from that whopper.
Sorry about that, here's the right link.
Other than your insult, I have no idea what you are talking about. A company cannot rename, redistribute and relicense something they don't actually own in the first place.
I feel like I'm arguing with children over this. Someone gave them free candy, and now they're throwing a hissy fit because they might not have it given to them anymore.
No, they are not remote possibilities. If you knew half as much about this case as you're trying to sound like you do, you would know that SCO does not dispute that the journaling file system, which IBM contributed to linux, originated with IBM and was developed for AIX. SCO is claiming that licensing legerdemain allows them to claim ownership of IBM's original work. They can claim that, but that just proves you can claim anything if you're a lawyer. Journaling file systems have been part of IBM's mainframe operating systems for decades. SCO will have a hell of a time convincing a judge that they own something that IBM was doing before they were born.
Another of SCO's "claimed properties" is memory management code for non-uniform memory architecures. They claim IBM stole this from them, that it's part of UNIX System V. Except that everybody knows that the so-called NUMA technology was done by Sequent in the mid 1990's. There is no way in Hell it was ever part of AT&T's System V distribution, because it hadn't been invented then. In 1999, IBM bought Sequent, so today IBM is the owner of the NUMA code. SCO is in the ludicrous position of claiming that IBM stole from them what IBM is known to have purchased from Sequent, who is known to be the original author of the code.
Here's an interesting thing I just learned. In Germany, the courts have enjoined SCO from making these claims. The order prohibuts SCO-Caldera from circulating "the idea that the Linux Operating System illegitimately acquired and contains the Intellectual Property of SCO UNIX and/or that the end users of LINUX can be made liable for patent/copyright infringements against SCO's intellectual Properties." The order provides for a fine of up to 250,000 Euros -- or jail time for the CEO -- for each violation.
There is a similar doctrine in U.S. law called Trade Libel. I suspect we will be hearing more about that soon. If you, or anyone you know, is an employee of, oh, say, Microsoft Corporation, you might want to brush up on Trade Libel as a cause of action.
That much is clear.
A company *does* indeed, often, license some out-of-date software to rename, redistribute and re-license to others. It's common in the software industry. Your sentence screamed "I don't know anything about this but have an opinion anyway".
And that 'analyst' (a man from a company *known* to be an MS FUD machine, perhaps the most famous one currently going -- are you familiar with the Windows v. Linux TCO fiasco of theirs?) clearly said, and I quote, "he cannot conclude whether or not SCO's legal claims of copyright infringement have merit."
A seriously pro-MS person couldn't find any conclusive evidence. Period.
Either you're completely uninformed on this topic, or you're deliberately decieving. Either way, it's funny to me!
I'm off to Dallas, to see the Eagles, and won't be checking back in for a while.
Have a nice day.
Check it out.
And that's what this case is about, stealing software, in this case from a business partner. Talk about a dirty trick. Ever heard of Project Monterey? SCO, IBM and Sequent were partners, working together for some time towards what was supposed to be the next big thing in the Unix world. All the big names were already signed up to support it, but then out of the 'blue', and without public explanation, IBM killed the whole deal.
They claimed it was a simple business decision to refocus on Linux instead of Unix, and bolted on long time partner SCO to run off with the new pretty girl. All's fair in love and war you say, but this time, according to some of the evidence we're starting to see, it looks like IBM may have stolen some of the processes they had jointly developed in past or present and then impelemented them in their new darling.
I find it easily believable, and all the evidence we're hearing so far looks that way. IBM is no lilly white virgin - she's been drug through the courts before for unfair practices, and is also currently under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commision for other recent illegalaties. SCO's history is that of a company that has been wronged by corporate giants, and once again it looks like that is what is happening here.
What's wrong is wrong, and no bribe of 'free software' will ever make me change my mind.
Here you are again stating as fact something that you cannot know. If you have some comment to make about evidence or legal precedents in this matter, or the technology involved, those comments would be welcome. Further name-calling and assertions of guilt based on what appears to be a predisposition on your part toward emotional ranting are a waste of time. When you have something cogent to say, let us know.
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.