Professional Web Applications Themes

SCO, Open Source and the Un*x source code - SCO

On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:51:08PM +0000, [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] wrote: .... >Even if SCO wanted to do that, I suspect there is too much royalty >enbered code within to do it easily. Isn't SCO claiming that they own all the Unix IP in the world :-). On the other hand, since (a) SCO/Caldera built, sold, and distributed Linux systems including fairly major patches to the kernels, and (b) they did this under the terms of the GPL, SCO voluntarily gave up their IP rights on anything in the kernel. Bill -- INTERNET: [email]billCelestial.COM[/email] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC UUCP: camco!bill ...

  1. #1

    Default Re: SCO, Open Source and the Un*x source code

    On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:51:08PM +0000, [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
    ....
    >Even if SCO wanted to do that, I suspect there is too much royalty
    >enbered code within to do it easily.
    Isn't SCO claiming that they own all the Unix IP in the world :-).

    On the other hand, since (a) SCO/Caldera built, sold, and distributed Linux
    systems including fairly major patches to the kernels, and (b) they did
    this under the terms of the GPL, SCO voluntarily gave up their IP rights on
    anything in the kernel.

    Bill
    --
    INTERNET: [email]billCelestial.COM[/email] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
    UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
    FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
    URL: [url]http://www.celestial.com/[/url]

    ``One of the common failings among honorable people is a failure to
    appreciate how thoroughly dishonorable some other people can be, and how
    dangerous it is to trust them.''
    - Thomas Sowell
    Bill Campbell Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: SCO, Open Source and the Un*x source code

    Bill Campbell <billcelestial.com> wrote:
    >On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:51:08PM +0000, [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
    >...
    >>Even if SCO wanted to do that, I suspect there is too much royalty
    >>enbered code within to do it easily.
    >Isn't SCO claiming that they own all the Unix IP in the world :-).
    >On the other hand, since (a) SCO/Caldera built, sold, and distributed Linux
    >systems including fairly major patches to the kernels, and (b) they did
    >this under the terms of the GPL, SCO voluntarily gave up their IP rights on
    >anything in the kernel.
    I doubt it. I know there are a lot of Linux zealots who would like
    that to be the case, but my bet is that even if the situation is
    exactly as they'd like it to be, a court would find that they gave
    up nothing.

    While the GPL is a wonderful concept, courts tend to be very protective
    of property right. I am, of course, not a lawyer, but I am a realist,
    and reality is that property interests will likely win.

    Not that I would terribly mind being wrong..

    --
    [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
    Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: SCO, Open Source and the Un*x source code

    Whoever <nobodydevnull.none> wrote:
    >On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
    >> Bill Campbell <billcelestial.com> wrote:
    >> >On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:51:08PM +0000, [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
    >> >...
    >> >>Even if SCO wanted to do that, I suspect there is too much royalty
    >> >>enbered code within to do it easily.
    >>
    >> >Isn't SCO claiming that they own all the Unix IP in the world :-).
    >>
    >> >On the other hand, since (a) SCO/Caldera built, sold, and distributed Linux
    >> >systems including fairly major patches to the kernels, and (b) they did
    >> >this under the terms of the GPL, SCO voluntarily gave up their IP rights on
    >> >anything in the kernel.
    >>
    >> I doubt it. I know there are a lot of Linux zealots who would like
    >> that to be the case, but my bet is that even if the situation is
    >> exactly as they'd like it to be, a court would find that they gave
    >> up nothing.
    >Given that I donwloaded a copy of the kernel from SCO's site YESTERDAY, I
    >really doubt that SCO can enforce anything more than their rights under
    >the GPL.
    >Don't forget, if SCO makes distributions of GPL code (as it does though
    >it's ftp site) yet claims the code is not GPL'd, then SCO is violating the
    >kernel contributors' (INCLUDING IBM's) copyrights.

    So you and a lot of Slashdot folks say. But it is isn't going to be
    decided my a majority vote of the great unwashed. Even if the GPL was
    seen as valid in this context (yet to be seen), you'd likely have to
    show that SCO knowingly released the code - iow, that they were
    aware of their code being in there.

    It's not as simple as the roaring Slashdotters think it is. But then
    what is?

    --
    [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
    Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: SCO, Open Source and the Un*x source code

    On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
    >
    > So you and a lot of Slashdot folks say. But it is isn't going to be
    > decided my a majority vote of the great unwashed. Even if the GPL was
    > seen as valid in this context (yet to be seen), you'd likely have to
    > show that SCO knowingly released the code - iow, that they were
    > aware of their code being in there.
    So, SCO s going to say that they did not know "their" code is in the
    kernel? That might have been true some time in 2002, but they can hardly
    make such an argument after they initiated a lawsuit.

    And please note, the GPL clearly covers the question of what you must do
    if you cannot abide by the GPL: you have to stop distributing the GPL'd
    code.

    If the GPL is not valid, then normal copyright law kicks in and SCO has no
    right to reproduce the linux kernel code.

    So, either:
    1. SCO has GPL'd "their" code or:
    2. SCO has violated the copyrights of the hundreds of linux kernel
    developers (including IBM) or:
    3. SCO does not own the copyright to any code in the Linux kernel

    Care to suggest a 4th option? Oh yes, I have it:
    4. SCO copied Linux code into SCO's kernel. Well, this is not really an
    option because it addreses a different question (that is: does SCO
    actually own the copyright to any code in the Linux kernel).

    Note that the FSF's lawyer seems to believe option 1 is true. Not that the
    opinion of one lawyer is terribly significant, but it is probably more
    significant that the collective opinion of the "great unwashed."

    It is important to differentiate between the trade secret claims against
    IBM versus the copyright claims against Linux in general.

    I'm just waiting to see IBM's next significant step.

    Whoever Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: SCO, Open Source and the Un*x source code

    In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307211110330.12657-100000c941211-a>,
    Whoever <nobodydevnull.none> wrote:
    >On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
    >
    >> Bill Campbell <billcelestial.com> wrote:
    >> >On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:51:08PM +0000, [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
    >> >...
    >> >>Even if SCO wanted to do that, I suspect there is too much royalty
    >> >>enbered code within to do it easily.
    >>
    >> >Isn't SCO claiming that they own all the Unix IP in the world :-).
    >>
    >> >On the other hand, since (a) SCO/Caldera built, sold, and distributed Linux
    >> >systems including fairly major patches to the kernels, and (b) they did
    >> >this under the terms of the GPL, SCO voluntarily gave up their IP rights on
    >> >anything in the kernel.
    >>
    >> I doubt it. I know there are a lot of Linux zealots who would like
    >> that to be the case, but my bet is that even if the situation is
    >> exactly as they'd like it to be, a court would find that they gave
    >> up nothing.
    >Given that I donwloaded a copy of the kernel from SCO's site
    >YESTERDAY, I really doubt that SCO can enforce anything more
    >than their rights under the GPL.
    >Don't forget, if SCO makes distributions of GPL code (as it does
    >though it's ftp site) yet claims the code is not GPL'd, then
    >SCO is violating the kernel contributors' (INCLUDING IBM's)
    >copyrights.
    And SCO did stop distributing their version of Linux. You can't
    accidentally give your copyright away so at the most SCO would be
    violating some GLP licensing. I guess Stallman will have to sue
    them :-)
    >

    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv wjv . com
    Bill Vermillion Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: SCO, Open Source and the Un*x source code

    On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Bill Vermillion wrote:
    > In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307211110330.12657-100000c941211-a>,
    > Whoever <nobodydevnull.none> wrote:
    > >On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
    > >
    > >> Bill Campbell <billcelestial.com> wrote:
    > >> >On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:51:08PM +0000, [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
    > >> >...
    > >> >>Even if SCO wanted to do that, I suspect there is too much royalty
    > >> >>enbered code within to do it easily.
    > >>
    > >> >Isn't SCO claiming that they own all the Unix IP in the world :-).
    > >>
    > >> >On the other hand, since (a) SCO/Caldera built, sold, and distributed Linux
    > >> >systems including fairly major patches to the kernels, and (b) they did
    > >> >this under the terms of the GPL, SCO voluntarily gave up their IP rights on
    > >> >anything in the kernel.
    > >>
    > >> I doubt it. I know there are a lot of Linux zealots who would like
    > >> that to be the case, but my bet is that even if the situation is
    > >> exactly as they'd like it to be, a court would find that they gave
    > >> up nothing.
    >
    > >Given that I donwloaded a copy of the kernel from SCO's site
    > >YESTERDAY, I really doubt that SCO can enforce anything more
    > >than their rights under the GPL.
    >
    > >Don't forget, if SCO makes distributions of GPL code (as it does
    > >though it's ftp site) yet claims the code is not GPL'd, then
    > >SCO is violating the kernel contributors' (INCLUDING IBM's)
    > >copyrights.
    >
    > And SCO did stop distributing their version of Linux. You can't
    > accidentally give your copyright away so at the most SCO would be
    > violating some GLP licensing. I guess Stallman will have to sue
    > them :-)
    No, they did not stop. They may have stopped selling their Caldera Linux
    distro, but you can still download the kernel source from their ftp site.
    That constitutes "distribution".

    Even so, they did not stop selling their own linux distro until some time
    AFTER they initiated their lawsuit, which would have to be a significant
    time after the "discovered" "their" IP in the kernel.

    So, I think the "inadvertant" distribution argument will fly like a lead
    baloon. They knowingly distributed the kernel with "their" code in it.

    Remember also they have not alleged any SCO IP is in anything other than
    the kernel (which is technically the only part that can be accurately
    described as "Linux") and specifically, they have not alleged that any GNU
    code violates their IP, so I am not sure that Stallman would have any
    standing to sue. Which is incidentally why they will not be able to sue
    Linux users: since one of the contract amendments makes it clear that IBM
    owns any derivative works done by or for IBM: IBM is thus the copyright
    holder of the code such as NUMA, RCU, JFS, etc. and only the copyright
    holder can sue for copyright infringement.
    >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    Whoever Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: SCO, Open Source and the Un*x source code

    Whoever <nobodydevnull.none> wrote:
    >On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
    >>
    >> So you and a lot of Slashdot folks say. But it is isn't going to be
    >> decided my a majority vote of the great unwashed. Even if the GPL was
    >> seen as valid in this context (yet to be seen), you'd likely have to
    >> show that SCO knowingly released the code - iow, that they were
    >> aware of their code being in there.
    >So, SCO s going to say that they did not know "their" code is in the
    >kernel? That might have been true some time in 2002, but they can hardly
    >make such an argument after they initiated a lawsuit.
    At which time they stopped selling Linux. Why do you think that was?

    And please, I don't want to hear about how their FTP sight is still
    distributing patches. I hear enough of this nonsense. It's
    unimportant.
    >And please note, the GPL clearly covers the question of what you must do
    >if you cannot abide by the GPL: you have to stop distributing the GPL'd
    >code.
    And you are convinced that a court is going to agree with you that
    the GPL is valid in that context. As much as I'd like to see that be true
    (not because of this lawsuit, but in general), it just may not happen.
    I've said it before: courts favor property rights.
    >If the GPL is not valid, then normal copyright law kicks in and SCO has no
    >right to reproduce the linux kernel code.
    Yadda, yadda. You think I haven't heard this before? Once again:
    IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS YOU THINK.

    My bet is that property rights will prevail. SCO may or may not be
    able to prove that IBM put their code into Linux, but no harm will
    come to SCO's IP in either case. As you are conveniently anonymous,
    when the dust all settles here you can come back with yet another made
    up name and pretend you knew all along what would happen. That's
    just one of the many reasons why I wish I were smart enough to
    disengage from this very foolish conversation.


    --
    [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
    Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: SCO, Open Source and the Un*x source code

    On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 06:20:25AM +0000, Whoever wrote:
    .....
    >Remember also they have not alleged any SCO IP is in anything other than
    >the kernel (which is technically the only part that can be accurately
    >described as "Linux") and specifically, they have not alleged that any GNU
    >code violates their IP, so I am not sure that Stallman would have any
    >standing to sue. Which is incidentally why they will not be able to sue
    >Linux users....
    The hook here is that the FSF has is probably that Caldera/SCO published
    and distributed(s) the Linux kernel under the GPL which should bring
    everything Caldera/SCO put in subject to the GPL.
    >Linux users: since one of the contract amendments makes it clear that IBM
    >owns any derivative works done by or for IBM: IBM is thus the copyright
    >holder of the code such as NUMA, RCU, JFS, etc. and only the copyright
    >holder can sue for copyright infringement.
    There's ample doentation that Caldera/SCO knowingly contributed to this
    development process, specifically to bring it into Linux. One of their
    developers in Germany was heavily involved in the JFS and other Linux
    kernel projects -- as part of his job with Caldera/SCO.

    Of course this won't keep the land sharks from bleeding SCO dry, and
    costing the others involved a ton of money.

    Bill
    --
    INTERNET: [email]billCelestial.COM[/email] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
    UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
    FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
    URL: [url]http://www.celestial.com/[/url]

    ``I don't make jokes, I just watch the Government and report the facts...''
    Will Rogers
    Bill Campbell Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: SCO, Open Source and the Un*x source code

    [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
    > Whoever wrote:
    > (bunch of crapola deleted, same old Slashdot nonsense that
    > I am not going to waste any more time on)
    >> But, if they can't get any money from IBM or Linux users, then
    >> SCO will be bankrupt, so the integrity of SCO's property
    >> rights will be moot.
    > I doubt it. They still get very significant revenues from OSR5
    > and Unixware licenses, and while I'm not sure about their long
    > term prospects, I would bet they'll do just fine over the next
    > few years at least.
    I wouldn't be so sure.

    SCO has been very forthcoming in it's SEC filings since they are being
    investigated for improprieties.

    In those filings SCO made it quite clear that their market share is in
    decline and the upgrade cycle isn't producing much income.

    SCO likes to talk about 2.5 million users worldwide but I think that
    represents every license they have ever sold.

    Nope, if this little ploy fails to generate any cashflow, SCO will cease to
    be within a year. They may be acquiring web tool companies now but they are
    paying with stock, not real money. And as we all know their stock is
    artificially high based on a long-shot bet mentality, not real value. If
    you look at the actual volume of stock traded it is miniscule compared to
    RedHat (about 1/8th) and doesn't even constitute noise on an IBM scale.

    Here is a fact - SCO still refuses to reveal what code that appears in Linux
    belongs to them. We only have their word for it because their little show
    and tell sessions are totally useless.

    Now SCO declares that the offending code can not be removed - we have only
    their word for that as well.

    I believe SCO and their pet lawyer David Boise are a pack of thieves trying
    to stick up a much more successful business model after they have failed in
    their own.

    Time will tell.

    8^)

    Brian
    Network Services

    brian Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: SCO, Open Source and the Un*x source code

    On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
    > In comp.unix.sco.misc Whoever <nobodydevnull.none> wrote:
    >
    > (bunch of crapola deleted, same old Slashdot nonsense that I am
    > not going to waste any more time on)
    In other words: you don't have an answer to my comments!
    >
    > >But, if they can't get any money from IBM or Linux users, then SCO will be
    > >bankrupt, so the integrity of SCO's property rights will be moot.
    >
    > I doubt it. They still get very significant revenues from OSR5 and Unixware
    > licenses, and while I'm not sure about their long term prospects, I
    > would bet they'll do just fine over the next few years at least.
    This is a company that has not made a profit until their last quarter and
    their major revenue during that quarter is highly unlikely to be recurring
    over the long term.

    Also, have you considered the possibility that IBM may counter-sue? SCO
    doesn't have the right to revoke IBM's license to sell AIX and so in
    attempting to do so, they may have created a huge legal mess for
    themselves. Furthermore, IBM has a huge patent portfolio -- what if IBM
    could find a patent or patents that Unixware is violating and disrupt
    or stop SCO's ability to sell Unixware?

    Heck, were are talking about a company that did not even think to register
    the "scosource.com" domain name!

    They have made one smart move: buy companies with their inflated stock --
    if the Unix products end up with zero value the company may still have a
    revenue stream from those people who are gullible enough to accept SCO
    stock for their company.

    Whoever Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: SCO, Open Source and the Un*x source code

    Whoever <nobodydevnull.none> wrote:
    >On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
    >> In comp.unix.sco.misc Whoever <nobodydevnull.none> wrote:
    >>
    >> (bunch of crapola deleted, same old Slashdot nonsense that I am
    >> not going to waste any more time on)
    >In other words: you don't have an answer to my comments!
    I've answered your "comments" before. You haven't said anything new,
    and quite frankly I think this kind of comment by an anonymous poster
    isn't worth crap just because of that. You hide behind anonymity,
    you get no respect from me.
    >Also, have you considered the possibility that IBM may counter-sue? SCO
    >doesn't have the right to revoke IBM's license to sell AIX and so in
    >attempting to do so, they may have created a huge legal mess for
    >themselves. Furthermore, IBM has a huge patent portfolio -- what if IBM
    >could find a patent or patents that Unixware is violating and disrupt
    >or stop SCO's ability to sell Unixware?
    Sure. All kinds of things like this could happen.

    I've put my opinions at [url]http://aplawrence.com/Blog/267.html[/url] and
    am done with this thread.

    --
    [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
    Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: SCO, Open Source and the Un*x source code

    On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
    > Whoever <nobodydevnull.none> wrote:
    > >On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
    >
    > >> In comp.unix.sco.misc Whoever <nobodydevnull.none> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> (bunch of crapola deleted, same old Slashdot nonsense that I am
    > >> not going to waste any more time on)
    >
    > >In other words: you don't have an answer to my comments!
    >
    > I've answered your "comments" before. You haven't said anything new,
    You have never explained why you don't think that downloading a source RPM
    does not mean that SCO has given away their rights. Here's the info from
    that package:
    [xspare ~]$ rpm -q -i -p linux-2.4.13-21S_from_sco.src.rpm
    Name : linux Relocations: (not relocateable)
    Version : 2.4.13 Vendor: Caldera
    International, Inc.
    Release : 21S Build Date: Sat 03 May 2003
    07:17:07 AM PDT
    Install date: (not installed) Build Host:
    build311.ps.asia.caldera.com
    Group : System/Kernel Source RPM: (none)
    Size : 27986389 License: GPL
    Packager : Ashish Kalra <ashishksco.com>
    URL : [url]http://www.kernel.org/[/url]
    Summary : Linux kernel sources and compiled kernel image.
    Description :
    Linux kernel sources and compiled kernel images.
    B-


    Note, SCO built it on May 03 THIS YEAR. Note that SCO licensed it UNDER
    THE GPL. SO what you are saying is that a court is going to:
    1. Ignore SCO's actions and
    2. Invalidate the GPL and
    3. Ignore the intellectual property rights of all the other Linux kernel
    developers.

    You keep harping on about courts siding with the rights of IP owners, but
    you have never addressed the issue that in order to allow SCO to escape
    from the GPL, the court has to le over the rights of thousands of
    other IP owners. Why should a court favor the rights of one IP owner with
    dubious claims to ownership over and above the rights of hundreds of
    others with clear ownership to the IP?




    Whoever Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Why doesn't the Code Completion occur in FlexBuilder IDEwhen source code is in an external file?
    By DuffyVector123 in forum Macromedia Flex General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 25th, 01:39 PM
  2. How to open a source code???
    By Marco Mugnatto in forum Macromedia Flex General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 5th, 03:20 AM
  3. Can open the source code of ASPNetDesignerMgr.dll?
    By muoto in forum Macromedia Exchange Dreamweaver Extensions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 16th, 10:31 PM
  4. Is PHP open source ??
    By Sleazless Puritan in forum PHP Development
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 3rd, 06:46 PM
  5. Open Source CMS
    By Martin in forum ASP
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 8th, 02:23 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139