As seen on Slashdot:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1123176,00.asp
Some members of the open-source community are claiming that the SCO
Group may have violated the terms of the GNU GPL (General Public
License) by incorporating source code from the Linux kernel into the
Linux Kernel Personality feature found in SCO Unix without giving the
changes back to the community or displaying copyright notices
attributing the code to Linux.
A source close to SCO, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told eWEEK
that parts of the Linux kernel code were copied into the Unix System V
source tree by former or current SCO employees.
That could violate the conditions of the GNU GPL, which states that any
amendments to open-source code used in a commercial product must be
given back to the community or a copyright notice must be displayed
attributable to Linux, he said.
The source, who has seen both the Unix System V source code and the
Linux source code and who assisted with a SCO project to bring the two
kernels closer together, said that SCO "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 LKP is a feature that allows users to run standard Linux
applications along with standard Unix applications on a single system
using the UnixWare kernel.
"During that project we often came across sections of code that looked
very similar, in fact we wondered why even variable names were
identical. It looked very much like both codes had the same origin, but
that was good as the implementation of 95 percent of all Linux system
calls on the Unix kernel turned out to be literally 'one-liners'," the
source said.
Only a handful of system calls.socketcall, ipc and clone.were fairly
difficult to implement as they involved the obvious differentiators
between Linux and Unix: networking, inter-process communication and
kernel threads, the source said.
--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai / a capoeirista
PGP fingerprint: 2D92 980E 45FE 2C28 9DB7 9D88 97E6 839B 2EAC 625B
http://www.tendra.org/ | http://www.in-nomine.org/~asmodai/diary/
I am the impossibility...
Just out of curiousity, what patents are there in the current Unix System V
system? The setuid patent was released to the public, so that can't be
an issue. And copyright, trade secrets, blah blah, I can understand. But
I'm curious what is there in System V that has actually been patented?
Thanks,
Arnold
Here is my response to SCO vs. Linux. The thing is, some of the things they are
saying I agree with most emphatically, except that what those things really
support is not SCO but our TUHS cause. Their main line, at least as I interpret
it, is that UNIX is the real OS, UNIX is better than Linux, and Linux is just a
naughty child that is becoming more and more of a nuisance to the adults. I
agree wholeheartedly! I and many other UNIX bigots have been more vocal about
this than SCO.
BUT... UNIX is not what SCO means by this term, UNIX is V7 -> 4BSD! That is the
real UNIX, USG is just a bad commercialized branch that no one ever really
liked anyway! So to all those Fortune 1000 (or whatever that was) companies
warned by SCO to stop running Linux, they should throw out those cheap micros,
put all their old large VAXen back online, and run True UNIX, 4.3 BSD UNIX! And
that *is* real UNIX, it comes directly from V7 and openly and proudly admits to
this fact! Isn't an OS that openly and proudly admits to come directly from
Holy UNIX better than a cheap UNIX copycat that needs to be sued in court to
determine what the hell it really is?
But SCO probably won't be too happy about it as they just gave away the True
UNIX (V7) to the World for free, and it's non-retractable.
So if anything good comes out of this lawsuit it's that maybe, just maybe, BSD
will finally get some attention and use over Linux. The Free Computing
community doesn't have to suffer any loss whatsoever if SCO wins, we can
instead just switch from Linux to the much better True UNIX, which is just as
free but a lot more solid, mature, and True. And stick it to SCO and laugh
diabolically at how they voluntarily made UNIX free without us having to seize
it by force in a revolution.
MS (donning the flameproof spacesuit)
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3752
In a nutshell the SCO NDA is a gag, a muzzle. It restricts you to only being
able to say "yes there is common code" or "no there is no common code", nothing
else may be said by you without violating the NDA.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
Looks like sco has learned a lot from its cozying up with microsoft that is
instead of meeting market challenges with better technology and competitive
pricing against its competitors it resorts to the lowest form bullying
marketing gimmicks and legal arm twisting just like microsoft style , so
now they look like shooting themselves in the foot , good ! let's hope they
shoot both feet !.
>From: Kenneth Stailey <kstailey(a)yahoo.com>
>To: tuhs(a)tuhs.org
>Subject: Re: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
>Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 19:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Two words: "version control".
>
>If the code that SCO purports is copied into Linux is known the version
>control
>archives will say who inserted it. It will be very easy to prove if
>Caldera
>inserted the code themselves.
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
>http://calendar.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>TUHS mailing list
>TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
>http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Kenneth Stailey:
Two words: "version control".
If the code that SCO purports is copied into Linux is known
the version control archives will say who inserted it. It will
be very easy to prove if Caldera inserted the code
themselves.
Alas, two more words: "read-write storage." Version control
info is stored in a file; how do we know (as SCalderaO might
argue) that some hacker hasn't edited it after the fact to
pretend something was put in by Caldera, or that they just
lied about it to begin with?
Version control data might be a useful, but I suspect only as
a trail to specific people whose could then offer personal
testimony about the history of a particular piece of code.
The testimony would be harder to impeach than the code.
Even a read-only copy of the version control info, e.g. a
CD-ROM, isn't a lot more solid; some hard evidence would
be needed of when that CD-ROM was written, beyond the
easily-forged timestamps on the disc itself, and there could
still be a claim that someone just lied when writing it,
especially if there is a claim that malice was involved. So
it still would probably come down to personal testimony.
The usual disclaimer applies: I'm no lawyer. I'm just trying
to think of counter-arguments, both those reasonable in
abstract and those that seem to fit within the spirit of the
complaint against IBM.
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030606S0039
Linux-Unix ties spelled out
By Charles J. Murray
EE Times
June 6, 2003 (5:08 p.m. ET)
PARK RIDGE, Ill. � SCO Group revealed the foundation of its legal battle with
the Linux community, when it rolled out evidence of large blocks of Linux code
that it contends were stolen from Unix. Analysts who saw the samples of the
allegedly stolen code said the evidence is damaging and that SCO Group has a
formidable legal case.
�If everything SCO showed me today is true, then the Linux community should be
very concerned,� said Bill Claybrook, research director for Linux and
open-source software at the Aberdeen Group (Boston).
If SCO (Lindon, Utah) prevails in its legal efforts, many observers believe the
action could, at best, result in hundreds of multimillion-dollar licensing
payments from Fortune 1000 companies and, at worst, damage the foundation of
open-source software.
The revelations by the SCO Group Wednesday (June 4) followed a turbulent week
in which the company exchanged both allegations and counterallegations with
Linux supporters and with Novell Inc. (Provo, Utah), which has proclaimed in an
open letter that SCO doesn't own the copyrights and patents to Unix, the
operating system Novell sold to SCO in 1995.
SCO's revelations also served as a response to the Linux community, which has
complained over the past two months that it doubted SCO's contentions of theft
because the company had not publicly disclosed evidence to support its claims.
Claybrook and another analyst who had been given an opportunity to see examples
of the alleged theft said the blocks of Unix and Linux were strikingly similar.
The two blocks of software, they said, contained as many as 80 lines of
identical code, along with identical developers' comments.
�One could argue that developers could write exact or very similar code, but
the developers' comments in the code are basically your DNA, or fingerprints,
for a particular piece of source code,� said Laura DiDio, a senior analyst with
the Yankee Group (Boston), who viewed the evidence.
�It's very unlikely that code and comments could be identical by pure chance,�
Claybrook said.
DiDio and Claybrook said they were given side-by-side copies of Unix and Linux
code to compare. Neither was paid for the work, and both agreed that the
evidence suggests SCO has a strong case in its $1 billion suit against IBM
Corp. and in its scrap with the Linux community.
Linux supporters, however, were quick to question the meaning of the evidence.
�Can SCO prove that this code came from SCO to Linux, and not from Linux to
SCO?� asked Jon �Maddog� Hall, executive director of Linux International
(Nashua, N.H.), a Linux advocacy organization. �Or did the code that's in SCO
Unix come from a third source? Show me the facts,� he said.
SCO's battle with the open-source community grabbed headlines two months ago
when it filed a $1 billion lawsuit in the state court of Utah against IBM,
alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition in the Linux
market. In May, on the heels of that suit, SCO sent letters to Fortune 1,000
companies and 500 other businesses advising them to seek legal counsel if they
use Linux.
SCO's actions angered Linux supporters, who allegedly deluged the company with
angry e-mails, threatened drive-by shootings, and posted SCO's executives' home
phone numbers and addresses on Web sites.
On May 28, Novell jumped into the fray, arguing that it never sold the Unix
copyrights or patents to SCO when it consummated the Unix sale in 1995. In an
open letter to SCO, Novell said, �Apparently you share this view, since over
the last few months you have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights
to SCO, requests Novell has rejected.�
Novell assailed
In a subsequent news conference on May 30, SCO chief executive officer Darl
McBride lashed out at Novell, restating SCO's claim that it owns the Unix
operating system patents and implying that Novell has a hidden agenda for
insisting otherwise.
�We strongly disagree with Novell's position and view it as a desperate measure
to curry favor with the Linux community,� McBride said.
Last week's analyst revelations, however, cast the battle in a new light. Until
the analysts weighed in, Linux backers had relied on the defense that no one
had seen proof of the allegations. Most said they didn't understand why SCO had
refused to release the alleged infringements for public scrutiny. Some said
they viewed SCO's actions as a means to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt
about open-source software.
But analysts categorically disagreed with that viewpoint last week. �SCO is not
trying to destroy Linux,� said DiDio of the Yankee Group. �That's silly. This
is about paying royalties.�
SCO contends that by co-opting code from Unix, Linux has severely damaged SCO's
intellectual property. According to some estimates, the company collected
annual revenue of between $200 million and $250 million on Unix System 5 (sic)
software before the rise of Linux. After Linux reached the mainstream, those
revenue figures dropped to about $60 million a year.
Because it believes Linux incorporates code that's been �stolen� from Unix, it
has warned hundreds of companies to stop using Linux or start paying royalties.
�SCO's words were that Linux distributors and others who are using Linux are
'distributing stolen goods,' � said Claybrook of Aberdeen Group.
Some companies, such as Sun Microsystems Inc., already pay hefty royalties to
SCO for Unix. Two weeks ago, Microsoft Corp. joined that group when it agreed
to pay royalties that were said to be �significantly in excess of $10 million,�
one source said. Microsoft declined to comment on the details.
Facing a choice
Many observers believe SCO's case is bolstered by the fact that it is
represented by high-powered attorney David Boies, who prosecuted the Microsoft
antitrust case and represented Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election
vote-counting scandal.
Analysts said IBM will be the first company to face a choice in the legal
matter. �If IBM wants to cure this problem, they could start by buying all the
appropriate licenses and then paying SCO a billion dollars,� Claybrook said.
�But SCO now says that a billion may not be enough to cover their damages.�
Users of Linux also face a decision about whether to ignore SCO's letters or
pay for a license. Analysts said companies may face that decision as soon as
June 13, the date on which SCO has threatened to terminate its existing Unix
contracts with IBM.
Intellectual-property attorneys advise that companies that received a letter
from SCO first determine whether IBM is indemnifying them, as users, against
legal action.
IBM, for its part, has said it doesn't intend to respond to SCO's threat. �We
believe our contact is perpetual and irrevocable,� an IBM spokeswoman said.
�We've already paid for it, and there is nothing else we need to do.�
Whether the legal actions will harm Linux in the long run is still open to
question, experts said.
The Linux community, unconvinced by SCO's actions, says it is still waiting for
more solid proof that SCO really has a case. Most say that showing the alleged
violations to a few analysts who sign nondisclosure agreements isn't enough.
�We still don't see the need for secrecy,� said Hall of Linux International.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
What I find fascinating (and that no-one has mentioned yet) is how anyone
can claim that Unix internals are still trade secret, especially given
this book:
The Design of the UNIX Operating System,
Maurice J. Bach.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986.
ISBN 0-13-201799-7.
There's also these:
The Magic Garden Explained:
The Internals of Unix System V Release 4:
An Open Systems Design,
Berny Goodheart, James Cox, John R. Mashey.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1994.
ISBN 0-13-098138-9.
Unix Internals: The New Frontiers,
Uresh Vahalia.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1996.
ISBN 0-13-101908-2.
According to Amazon.com, a new edition is scheduled for 2005.
The Bach book, in particular, is a rather large smoking gun that AT&T
didn't care a huge amount about trade secrets. The book is still in
print (and selling for a whopping $69.97 on Amazon.com!) It doesn't
contain actual source code, but let's get real here...
Arnold
> add on the lion book
Yes, that's been officially published, as well as in N-th generation
photo copies. But the books I cited are for System V, including SVR4,
which is much more relevant for the issue under discussion...
Pfui. What a mess this whole business is.
Arnold
add on the lion book
>From: Aharon Robbins <arnold(a)skeeve.com>
>To: tuhs(a)tuhs.org
>Subject: Re: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
>Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 12:56:08 +0300
>
>What I find fascinating (and that no-one has mentioned yet) is how anyone
>can claim that Unix internals are still trade secret, especially given
>this book:
>
> The Design of the UNIX Operating System,
> Maurice J. Bach.
> Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986.
> ISBN 0-13-201799-7.
>
>There's also these:
>
> The Magic Garden Explained:
> The Internals of Unix System V Release 4:
> An Open Systems Design,
> Berny Goodheart, James Cox, John R. Mashey.
> Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1994.
> ISBN 0-13-098138-9.
>
> Unix Internals: The New Frontiers,
> Uresh Vahalia.
> Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1996.
> ISBN 0-13-101908-2.
> According to Amazon.com, a new edition is scheduled for 2005.
>
>The Bach book, in particular, is a rather large smoking gun that AT&T
>didn't care a huge amount about trade secrets. The book is still in
>print (and selling for a whopping $69.97 on Amazon.com!) It doesn't
>contain actual source code, but let's get real here...
>
>Arnold
>_______________________________________________
>TUHS mailing list
>TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
>http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
