Getting a glimpse at SCO's evidence

CNET news.com ^ | August 19, 2003 | Lisa M. Bowman

[Joe Bonforte]

LAS VEGAS--When SCO Group first filed its lawsuit against IBM in March, critics characterized the move as the last gasp of an ailing company hoping to strike a series of lucrative licensing deals.

Since then the company has come out swinging even harder, bashing its detractors, standing by its allegations, and most recently, posting a profit that SCO said would allow it to continue its aggressive intellectual property fight.

At the SCO Forum here Monday, the company pulled out its latest weapon: lines and lines of disputed code that were allegedly copied from SCO's Unix into IBM's version of Linux. The company claims that IBM illegally copied Unix code into its version of Linux, and it's warning Linux customers that they may be violating copyright by using the operating system without paying SCO. It's also recently announced a new licensing plan that would require Linux customers to pay between $199 and $699 per computer.

In a quiet conference room tucked into the conference center at the MGM Grand, SCO offered customers, partners and the merely curious the chance to view the code for themselves, as long as they signed a nondisclosure agreement.

Companies involved in litigation traditionally keep such information under wraps in order not to tip their legal hand, but SCO said it decided to display the code because its critics were charging that it didn't have a case.

"Given the nature of this case and that there may be a significant period of time before it's resolved and that people were clamoring to see it, we decided to show a few pieces of evidence," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president of the SCOsource unit, which is charged with protecting SCO's Unix-related intellectual property.

As of the end of the day on Monday, more than 150 people had seen the code presentation, which the company said includes a small portion of the infringing code it has found so far. Sontag said the company has uncovered more than a million lines of copied code in Linux, with the help of pattern recognition experts.

A compelling case?
According to those who viewed the code at SCO Forum, company representatives showed off several categories of code that allegedly infringed its copyrights, including some lines that appeared to be directly copied, some that were derivative works and some that were obfuscated, such as code from which legal disclaimers had been removed. (This reporter declined to sign the nondisclosure agreement required to attend the special sessions where the companies showed off a special side-by-side comparison of the code, opting instead to gather reactions from people who saw the presentation.)

After viewing the code, Don Price, general manager of Price Data Systems, said he was surprised at the volume that was allegedly copied. "It's compelling," he said. "Some people were either extremely sloppy, or copied and thought no one would go after them."

Neil Abraham, with SCO reseller Kerridge Computer, said SCO made the right decision to pursue IBM. "I think they've got a very firm case," he said, after looking at the code. "It's not just one line. It's huge chunks."

Bob Ungetti, of Raven Technologies, who was milling about waiting to get into a room where the code was being shown off, said he wanted to see the code because his customers have been asking him about the suit. "I want to see the code myself just to substantiate the claims SCO is making, so when I talk to my customers about the credibility of the lawsuit, I can say I saw it for myself," said Ungetti, whose company is a reseller for SCO. "If they're interested in using Linux, they're concerned they may be adversely affected; my SCO customers are concerned that if the company loses the lawsuit, it may be out of business."

Ungetti said a keynote address on Monday morning had already convinced him that SCO had a pretty solid case. During a speech, SCO representatives showed a few slides containing the allegedly infringing code, offering attendees a taste of what they could see if they signed the nondisclosure agreement.

"The spelling errors and comments (copied into the code) are the real kicker. To me, that's the nail in the coffin," Ungetti said.

Many attendees of the conference are longtime SCO fans, so convincing them that the company has a case by showing them the code probably wasn't too tough. However, at least one attendee was appalled by SCO's decision to sue IBM. The man, an exhibitor on the show floor who asked that his name not be used, said that SCO's hands aren't clean either, because the company has probably taken code from other sources and incorporated it into its products. "It looks to me like there's been a lot of cross-pollination" between Unix and Linux, said the attendee, who jokingly called SCO's legal saga "As the Stomach Turns."

Legal experts agreed that SCO faces a challenge of proving that it has the original rights to the code--a task that could prove especially daunting because of a special license popular among makers of free and open-source software known as the GNU Public License, or GPL. The GPL requires companies that incorporate code into their product to share their changes. In its response to SCO's legal filing, IBM claims that SCO can't assert claims to the disputed code because it was originally covered under the GPL.

"Even if there is literal copying, you'll have to say, 'What's the source of the code?'" said Stuart Meyer, a partner with Fenwick & West, who is not involved in the case.

SCO has denied that the disputed code is covered by the GPL. An attorney for the company said Monday that even if it were, federal copyright laws protecting the company's intellectual property would trump the free software license, an argument that could form the crux of the case should it go to trial.

[Golden Eagle]

I'm just asking for a concise summary of your report, not the destroyed library you left behind on this thread. I guess I'll just wait for some established analysts to report before I go rummaging through your underground linux network.

[Coral Snake]

Sorry for the second post. Didn't know that this was already up.

[Nick Danger]

Well that is the question, I believe, down to the root, and were they authorized to do that. If it was a previous licensee, how do you know they were allowed?

I know how much you like to repeat the same talking point over and over again no matter how many times it's been debunked, so I'm sure we'll be hearing this one from you again.

So I have prepared a handy little gif that demonstrates that Caldera itself released this stuff as follows:

There's more of course, but let's not waste time with the "IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE" crap. Suffice to say that Caldera not only shipped all this stuff under the GPL, they also released it under a BSD license on their own letterhead.

You'll be seeing this gif every time I see your talking point.

[supercat]

The article just mentioned a non-disclosure agreement. How does that get people out of the Linux business?

The NDA would forbid anyone from ever disclosing knowledge on any subject SCO showed, even if they had that knowledge before SCO showed them, and even if SCO later made that knowledge public.

In other words, the only people who could sign such a license agreement would be those who had no interest in ever working with operating systems again. While this wouldn't affect reporters, it would strongly discourage anyone who had taken the time to familiarize themselves with the code at issue from attending. That, I suspect, was the real purpose of the NDA.

[Nick Danger]

In a matter of hours, the topic among those following this case has changed from whether SCO has any cattle to go along with its big hat, to whether we are watching a bunch of arrogant lawyers and non-technical 'suits' walk into a buzz-saw of their own design.

What if it's not a "pump and dump" stock scam? What if McBride and his cohorts went into this believing that they had a reasonable case? Here are all these lines of identical code, and these lawyers and finance-types have no clue how that might have happened. They don't know anything about the history of this business. So to them the conclusion is obvious — somebody stole our stuff.

They are so sure of it that they prepared some slides for their annual business-partner show in Las Vegas. "Here, gentlemen, is the smoking gun."

So some German reporter surreptituously takes a few photographs of the slides, and the next thing McBride knows his "smoking gun" is plastered all over the Internet. Within minutes, a million people who hate his guts go to work on finding out where this stuff came from. Sure enough, just as a whole bunch of people predicted at the very beginning, the SCO 'suits' are looking at old BSD code and they don't even know what that means. No wonder the Engineering VP sold all his stock and resigned.

In the meantime, Mr. McBride — who thinks he has a case — has conducted himself in ways that not only make intellectual property lawyers cringe, but subject his company and possibly himself to huge penalties and sanctions.

McBride has gotten on stage numerous times now to tell the world that IBM no longer has the right to sell AIX. He has threatened IBM's AIX customers with audits and possible lawsuits. If it turns out now that he is an ignorant 'suit' braying like an ass in Geekland, he and SCO are not just finished, they will be cratered.

SCO does not have enough money to pay for the damage they have done to IBM and its business. Red Hat alone could probably clean out the SCO wallet after all the bad-mouthing that SCO spokespersons have done to linux. IBM will want McBride's head on a stick, whatever remains of Ray Noorda's fortune, and the UNIX IP as the cherry on top.

[Golden Eagle]

What is your little pic supposed to prove? It says plain as day "specific exclusion of Unix System III and Unix System V and successor operating systems", so I have no idea what you think you are talking about.

'Prepare' all the 'handy little gifs' you want, if there no more effective than that one.

[justlurking]

I'm just asking for a concise summary of your report, not the destroyed library you left behind on this thread. I guess I'll just wait for some established analysts to report before I go rummaging through your underground linux network.

In other words, you are too lazy to examine the proof that was provided for you, just because you have to do a little work.

Check out my post #61 in this thread. It provides a fairly concise report of the discovery.

[Golden Eagle]

Aw, you'd love to have the Unix property rights as the cherry on top to your latest unbridled fantasy. Too bad, it belongs to someone else. It will be hilarious if IBM completely loses their rights to AIX over this.

[Golden Eagle]

In other words, you are too lazy to examine the proof that was provided for you, just because you have to do a little work.

No, I just don't pick up other people's messes, especially if they have no organizational skills of their own. I also don't normally click links over to hacker hangouts without a good reason. However I probably will check this link out some time tonight, since someone else was finally able to put some order to your madness.

[Nick Danger]

What is your little pic supposed to prove?

It was designed to demonstrate that you have no competence to discuss this subject.

I have no idea what you think you are talking about.

Confronted with proof that Caldera itself released the code being discussed here under a BSD-like license, you claim to not even know what it means. This frees you to continue to spew FUD and mud, and to repeat your talking points. But the ploy is obvious and fools no one.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

If that's the case, the we need to organize a watch in Ft. Marcy Park. Because this embarrasment goes waaaaaaay beyond the "Oooops! I gave the tape of our wedding night to your parents instead of the one of the wedding!!!" level. We are talking about an embarrasment that can land you in jail, with a bankrupt company on your resume and a hundred stockholder civil suits waiting on your release. I would NOT like to be McBride tonight...

[Nick Danger]

I would NOT like to be McBride tonight...

That's what I'm wondering... whether the bunch of them got their first clue today that all this noise they've been making just... might... be... a really huge, embarrassing, and possibly even criminal mistake.

At first they won't want to believe it, but within a couple of days the journalists who have — up to now — been their friends are going to start wondering if they've been had. And then the hard questions are gonna come. All these reporters have friends they trust with technical issues, and they're all going to be hearing the same thing. "If this is their smoking gun, they don't know what they're doing. This is worse than stupid, this is blind ignorance on parade."

Spies tell me that two large recipients of the SCO "threat letters" are looking for a few more like-minded companies to join them in a racketeering suit against SCO. They think they need 5 or 6 extortion targets to demonstrate the racketeering angle.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Spies tell me that two large recipients of the SCO "threat letters" are looking for a few more like-minded companies to join them in a racketeering suit against SCO. They think they need 5 or 6 extortion targets to demonstrate the racketeering angle.

Ugh! Well, if this was an intentional scam, McBride and his cronies deserve all that and more.

If it was an ignorant mistake.... well, we may just be seeing how evolution works after you remove all of the environmental hazards...

[Golden Eagle]

It was designed to demonstrate that you have no competence to discuss this subject.

Sorry it failed miserably. Once again, your link shows it excluded Sys V, so just because some slashdotter thought it was important doesn't mean it is, at all.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Huh? Let's discuss your competence to click on the right "Reply" button...

[Golden Eagle]

It's awful premature to be sipping champagne - I've still not seen anything showing this one example we've seen a screen shot of doesn't still belong to them. Without express rights for others to distribute it, it still belongs to ATT/SCO. So far I've heard it was in a book (without express permission to redistribute), and that some code may have been released by Caldera (but it said excluding Sys V), and that it was in BSD (which doesn't mean it still doesn't originally belong to SCO).

Notice not one media person has run with this underground Linux theory yet. Maybe tomorrow, but those pictures of this one slide are already a couple days old, so I wouldn't get your hopes up.

[Golden Eagle]

Sorry, that was for Danger. Getting late.

[Coral Snake]

Free Software Community Instruction manual

I can prepare little gifs to Mr. Danger. Perhapse THIS is where you are getting your talking points from?

[Nick Danger]

I've still not seen anything showing this one example we've seen a screen shot of doesn't still belong to them

Having watched other people read it to you, provide you with links, shove it in your face, scream it in your ears, and draw you pictures until they are blue in the face, I have to dismiss this latest statement from you as just another troll.

But just in case anyone came in late, I would not want your talking point left unanswered. So...

[tortoise]

So far I've heard it was in a book (without express permission to redistribute), and that some code may have been released by Caldera (but it said excluding Sys V), and that it was in BSD (which doesn't mean it still doesn't originally belong to SCO).

You really are clueless, aren't you? Align the codebase timeline of BSD with SCO. Then note that the BSD codebase is not only FAR older than SCO, but that the status of the BSD codebase with respect to AT&T Unix (from which SCO was derived) was established in a rather well-known court drama a long time ago.

If AT&T and Bell Labs (800-lb gorillas to be sure) were unable to assert their Unix ownership over BSD already in court, what makes you think a legal midget like SCO will prevail, particularly when SCO post-dates BSD? If SCO had demonstrated a Linux-only bit of source they *might* have something that at least would make an argument, but using an example that it turns out to exist in old BSD codebases is mindbogglingly stupid since BSDs claim to their old codebases is pretty much court-tested and iron-clad. All this would seem to indicate is that SCO, like most other operating systems, borrowed code from the BSD codebase. (Indeed, this was what the original AT&T versus BSD court battle was about -- AT&T claiming ownership rights to code written by BSD that was added to Unix).

Now that this has been discovered, SCO is going to get reamed. AT&T and BSD already duked it out ages ago and BSD won the right to their codebase in all essential aspects. Taking on Linux was dubious at best, but taking on BSD is downright idiotic.