Warren did:
> > $ zcat tape1.tar.gz | strings | grep -i copyr | uniq -c | sort -rn
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 11:35:53AM -0700, Kenneth Stailey wrote:
> why did you run "uniq -c | sort" and not "sort | uniq -c" ?
Because it was late. I really should have done
$ zcat tape1.tar.gz | strings | grep -i copyr | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn:
56 /* Copyright (c) 1979 Regents of the University of California */
20 c/* Copyright (c) 1979 Regents of the University of California */
6 Copyright \fB\^\s+8\v'.25m'\(co\v'-.25m'\s-8\|\fP1983 Western Electric Company, Incorporated.
6 "\001c\bO", /*copyright*/
4 Portions of this document were copyrighted
4 PAIR('c','o'), 0336, /*copyright*/
2 x/* Copyright (c) 1979 Regents of the University of California */
2 t/* Copyright (c) 1979 Regents of the University of California */
2 e/* Copyright (c) 1979 Regents of the University of California */
2 copyright
2 0153, /*copyright*/
2 .\" Portions of this document were copyrighted
2 'co', 0336, /*copyright*/
2 "\033\016O\b#\033\017", /*copyright*/
2 "\003(c)", /*copyright*/
2 "\001\0338c\0339", /*copyright*/
2 * Copyright 1975 Bell Telephone Laboratories, Incorporated
2 /* Copyright 1976, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc.,
There, that's better :-)
Warren
I came across this:
cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/930303.ruling.txt
17 U.S.C. 101. Version 32V source code has now been distributed,
without notice, to literally thousands of licensees.
Consequently, Plaintiff can have no valid copyright on 32V unless
it can fit within one of the statutory or common law escape
provisions.
The three statutory escape provisions are listed in
section 405(a). These provisions relieve a copyright owner from
the harsh consequences of noticeless publication if the owner
(i) omitted the notice from a "relatively small number of copies;"
(ii) registers the work within five years of publication, and then
makes a "reasonable effort" to add notices to the noticeless copies
already distributed; or (iii) proves that a third party omitted,
notice in violation of an express agreement in writing 17 U.S.C
405(a)(1)-(3).
Plaintiff cannot avail itself of any of these provisions.
Notice was omitted from thousands of copies of 32V; no contractual
agreements require the licensees to affix notice;
Plaintiff failed to copyright 32V until 1992, well over five years
after 32V was published; and Plaintiff has not yet made reasonable
efforts to add notices to the many noticeless publications of 32V.
Consequently, Plaintiff must try to fit within the common-law
doctrine of limited publication.
and I felt like asking a few questions in relation to Sys III - was it
copyrighted? When? And has SCO's publication of said Sys III on its Ancient
Unix web site created the presumption that SCO has no further interest in Sys
III?
Wesley Parish
--
Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1013229.html
Contract illuminates Novell, SCO spat
By Stephen Shankland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
June 4, 2003, 3:01 PM PT
A 1995 contract sheds light on the conflicting Unix ownership claims by Novell
and SCO Group, with SCO receiving broad rights to the operating system but
Novell retaining copyrights and patents.
According to a copy of the contract obtained by CNET News.com, Novell sold "all
rights and ownership of Unix and UnixWare" to the SCO Group's predecessor, the
Santa Cruz Operation. However, the asset purchase agreement, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, specifically excludes "all copyrights" and
"all patents" from the purchase.
"This agreement is kind of murky...You end up with a lot of questions, to put
it mildly," said Mark Radcliffe, an intellectual property attorney with law
firm Gray Cary.
While the contract squarely leaves the copyright with Novell, a section that
gives to SCO "all claims...against any parties relating to any right, property
or asset included in the (Unix) business" could be interpreted to give SCO the
right to enforce the copyright, Radcliffe said. "The question is, even though
(Novell) didn't assign the intellectual property (to SCO), did (Novell) assign
the rights to enforce the patents and copyrights?"
The Unix ownership issue is central to a debate about whether companies can be
taken to court for using Linux. On May 14, SCO claimed in letters sent to 1,500
of the world's largest companies that using Linux could open them to legal
liability because Unix source code has been copied into Linux.
That copying, if proven and illegal, could violate Unix copyrights and the
independent spirit of the open-source movement that creates Linux, but the
contract indicates SCO won't have a simple time relying on Unix copyrights in
such a case.
A week after SCO's letter, Novell said it never sold SCO the Unix copyrights
and patents and that SCO's actions could bring legal action on itself. "We
believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that it has any ownership interest
whatsoever in those copyrights," Novell Chief Executive Jack Messman said in a
letter to SCO.
The Unix ownership debate grew from SCO's $1 billion lawsuit against IBM,
alleging Big Blue breached its contract with SCO and misappropriated SCO's
trade secrets by moving Unix intellectual property into Linux. IBM denies the
claims.
SCO didn't immediately respond to questions about how the contract supports its
claims to rights of copyright enforcement, but company Chief Executive Darl
McBride last week said the contract had "conflicting statements."
"It doesn't make sense. How would you transfer the product but not have the
copyright attached? That would be like transferring a book but only getting the
cover," McBride said.
Novell continues to disagree with SCO. "It's pretty clear that patents and
copyrights were excluded and not included in the business as it's described (in
the contract), so we don't believe SCO would have copyright and patent
enforcement rights," Hal Thayer, vice president of communications for Novell,
said Wednesday.
Novell is basing future operating system products on Linux, and open-source
advocates say they are reassured by Messman's words that the company won't
press its own copyright claims. "Novell is an ardent supporter of Linux and the
open-source development community," Messman has said.
"It's difficult to imagine any scenario in which we'd bring Unix copyright
infringement action against Linux users. We certainly don't have any plans to
do any such thing...and we wouldn't have undertaken this whole call to SCO to
prove their claims if that was the road we wanted to pursue," Thayer said.
The 1995 contract appears to give Novell the edge in the copyright debate, said
John Ferrell, an intellectual property attorney with Carr and Ferrell, who
reviewed the contract.
"This would support Novell's contention that SCO does not own the copyrights
and does not have the right to litigate" a copyright infringement case, Ferrell
said. However, he said, the contract does indicate SCO could pursue a case that
a Unix licensee breached its contract.
But the contract is odd, Ferrell said. "It's very unusual to have the transfer
of a software program and not have the rights of copyright transferred as
well," he said.
SCO vehemently argues that it has copyright enforcement rights, but in any
case, it doesn't need the Unix copyright to go after Linux users.
"I think it's perfectly clear we have the rights to enforce copyright claims,"
McBride said in an interview after Novell challenged SCO's Linux actions. But
more likely than a copyright case, would be one based on breach of contract, he
said.
"The letter went to 1,500 large companies around the world, the majority of
which all have (Unix) System V licenses with us...We do have sublicense
rights," McBride said. "They sign up for the fact that they will not
misappropriate the code." The sublicenses come through Unix purchases made with
direct Unix licensees such as Silicon Graphics, Hewlett-Packard and IBM, he
said.
But the absence of copyright and patent claims in SCO's lawsuit against IBM is
telling, Gray Cary's Radcliffe said. Copyright and patent claims can make a
strong case.
"If they had the rights to enforce the copyrights, how come that didn't show up
in the IBM suit?" Radcliffe asked. "It's very weird they would bring a lawsuit
on trade secret (misappropriation) and unfair competition and not put in
copyrights and patents. Those are the strongest rights. Particularly with IBM,
you don't go out and say, 'I'm not going to take the elephant-hunting rifle
with me, I'm just going to take my .22-caliber.'"
SCO has said it has the option to include copyright claims later. But while
it's said Unix code was copied into Linux, it hasn't yet said who it believes
is responsible. SCO says it will show proof of the copying later this month to
some neutral parties.
SCO's suit mentions concepts and methods, but not copyrights: "It is not
possible for Linux to rapidly reach Unix performance standards for complete
enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of Unix code, methods or
concepts to achieve such performance and coordination by a larger developer
such as IBM."
Radcliffe said copying methods and concepts are much weaker evidence than
copying code. "If they did enough due diligence to figure out there were
concepts there, how the heck did they miss that there was actual code copying?"
he asked.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
There's an old joke:
If the law is against you, argue the facts.
If the facts are against you, argue the law.
If both are against you, call the other attorney names.
It's possible this is an elaborate tactic to step on IBM's feet until IBM apologizes - see "The Mouse That Roared". It could be that the issues are so convoluted, the SCO folks are very crafty (and think they can irritate Big Blue enough that IBM will pay them to go away). But it is indeed possible that they are really this clueless. There are many examples of businesses that once held pre-eminent positions, layed low by bonehead business decisions.
In any event, baseless lawsuits are a common business tool these days. And in a country where you can become independently wealthy by spilling coffee in your lap, and you can lose the popular vote by a large margin but be appointed to the highest office in the land by your daddy's Supreme Court - is any legal maneuver really a surprise anymore?
I printed out my "ancient UNIX" license (I got a no-charge license), I'm not erasing my RK05s yet. :-) -- Ian
NOTE: The above is my personal ranting, and should not be construed to reflect the policies or opinions of my employer.
________________________________
From: tuhs-admin(a)minnie.tuhs.org on behalf of Larry McVoy
Sent: Thu 5/29/2003 7:42 PM
To: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
Subject: [TUHS] Re: TUHS digest, Vol 1 #159 - 12 msgs
> SCO is blustering more and more as the open source community exposes
> them for the fruads that they have become.
In the for what it is worth department, I happen to know that this
stuff is more complex than it seems. For instance, I am pretty sure
that ATT should have won their lawsuit over the BSD stuff and if you
doubt that I'd suggest that you go compare the UFS code against the 32v
or v7 code. bmap() is a good place to look. Any suggestions that that
was completely rewritten are patently false, at least in my opinion.
I'm a file system guy, I've done a lot of work in UFS, I'm intimately
familiar with the code. In fact, I defended UFS against LFS when Kirk
wouldn't (LFS is a friggin' joke, any file system hacker knows that the
allocation policy is 90% of the file system).
I do not have knowledge of the code it is that SCO says infringes. And I
think that SCO is about as astute as I am in terms of public relations
(we both tend to be our own worst enemies and I thought I was without
peer in that department :-) But I suspect that there is at least some
merit to what they are claiming. I have to believe that nobody is stupid
enough to have zero data and jump out in public like they are doing.
That's just way too far over the top. Anything is possible I guess,
but doesn't it seem just a little unlikely that a corporation would
commit that public a suicide? I'll probably be proved wrong but I'm
a CEO, running a small company, much smaller than SCO, and there is
no way I'd stick my neck out that far with no data to back it up.
I'd like to think I'm smarter than they are but I tend to doubt it,
they have more experience.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.comhttp://www.bitmover.com/lm
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> SCO is blustering more and more as the open source community exposes
> them for the fruads that they have become.
In the for what it is worth department, I happen to know that this
stuff is more complex than it seems. For instance, I am pretty sure
that ATT should have won their lawsuit over the BSD stuff and if you
doubt that I'd suggest that you go compare the UFS code against the 32v
or v7 code. bmap() is a good place to look. Any suggestions that that
was completely rewritten are patently false, at least in my opinion.
I'm a file system guy, I've done a lot of work in UFS, I'm intimately
familiar with the code. In fact, I defended UFS against LFS when Kirk
wouldn't (LFS is a friggin' joke, any file system hacker knows that the
allocation policy is 90% of the file system).
I do not have knowledge of the code it is that SCO says infringes. And I
think that SCO is about as astute as I am in terms of public relations
(we both tend to be our own worst enemies and I thought I was without
peer in that department :-) But I suspect that there is at least some
merit to what they are claiming. I have to believe that nobody is stupid
enough to have zero data and jump out in public like they are doing.
That's just way too far over the top. Anything is possible I guess,
but doesn't it seem just a little unlikely that a corporation would
commit that public a suicide? I'll probably be proved wrong but I'm
a CEO, running a small company, much smaller than SCO, and there is
no way I'd stick my neck out that far with no data to back it up.
I'd like to think I'm smarter than they are but I tend to doubt it,
they have more experience.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.comhttp://www.bitmover.com/lm
Greg Lehey:
For
example, last year Caldera released "ancient UNIX" under a BSD-style
license, but now they're claiming it never happened. Maybe they don't
know about the company history. And if the code in dispute is derived
from ancient UNIX, there'll be egg on their face.
=====
If the code in dispute is derived from an ancient UNIX covered by
the Jan 2002 free license, and it doesn't clearly say so somewhere,
there is certainly egg and chips on someone's face. Said license
imposes few conditions, but one is that Caldera's copyright must
be maintained and the notice `This product includes software developed
or owned by Caldera International, Inc.' placed in `any advertising
materials.'
Of course, if the code comes from V6 and those notices are present
and Caldera still claims it's stolen, that's another basket of eggs.
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
Hello folks.
I've been watching this whole SCO vs. IBM assault on Linux thing and here are
my thoughts. I would not surprised a bit if it turns out that this idea was
conceived somewhere inside Microsoft, or in the White House, in the Pentagon,
or even at Area 51. This is about world control. A certain group of enormous
power has been ruling this planet and holding it in slavery for the past 4000
years. They are the ones in control today. They control the world through their
control of globalised imperial capitalism, total control of all media, and mind
control achieved by controlling all information input into human minds.
Control of computing and information resources is obviously of vital importance
to them in this day and age. It is they who invented M$ Weendoze, probably the
most effective brainwashing device since the Bible. It is really Weendoze that
keeps them in power. There are many activists fighting against this shadow
government, but their efforts are in vain for as long as they use Weendoze.
Fighting the shadow government while using their OS is like going on a duel and
having your opponent load your gun for you.
This is precisely why the shadow government is acting so arrogantly and
seemingly naively. Many conspiracy researchers have wondered how come if this
shadow govt is so powerful and obviously wants to remain in control, why aren't
they assassinating us or something to stop our efforts to defeat them. And I
think I know the answer now. They government is not assassinating conspiracy
researchers en masse because the vast majority of them use Weendoze and praise
Bill Gates. Thus while thinking that they are fighting the shadow government,
they actually support it.
And now it seems like the shadowy powers have begun to *really* fear Linux.
Because Linux more than anything poses the greatest threat to their power. It
does because if all those conspiracy researchers and anti-shadow govt freedom
fighters who are already out there happen to switch to Windows to Linux, the
probability of which rises proportionally as Linux gains more and more use,
then bye-bye shadow government. *That* is what they fear. And that is why they
have undertaken this ultrasecret covert anti-Linux operation.
Just my thoughts.
MS
P.S. Too bad that you've just missed Conspiracy Con 2003 last weekend, but they
have them every year. But there is also the companion conference, Bay Area UFO
Expo held in September, where they also talk a lot about conspiracies, as these
conspiracies are ultimately extraterrestrial. If anyone is interested in this I
strongly recommend going to the Expo this September. I'll be there if anyone
wants to meet me.
