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.
On Friday 30 May 2003 11:50 am, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 May 2003 at 6:33:54 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> > In message: <BAFBB8B1.118%rob(a)vetsystems.com>
> >
> > Robert Tillyard <rob(a)vetsystems.com> writes:
> >> I believe the legal action is over breach on contract with IBM and
> >> not on copyright issues.
> >
> > All of SCO's statements to the court have been contractual. Their
> > statements to the press have been inflated to include things that
> > aren't actually alledged in the court filings.
>
> What's not very clear here is that there seem to be two issues. The
> IBM issue is, as you say, a contractual one which about which they
> have been remarkably vague. The suspension of Linux distribution is a
> different matter. From http://www.lemis.com/grog/sco.html:
>
> On Tuesday, 27 May 2003, I spoke to Kieran O'Shaughnessy, managing
> director of SCO Australia. He told me that SCO had entrusted three
> independent companies to compare the code of the UnixWare and Linux
> kernels. All three had come back pointing to significant
> occurrences of common code ("UnixWare code", as he put it) in both
> kernels.
>
> In view of the long and varied history of UNIX, I wondered whether
> the code in question might have been legally transferred from an
> older version of UNIX to Linux, so I asked him if he really meant
> UnixWare and not System V.4. He stated that it was specifically
> UnixWare 7.
>
> >> But if it turns out the IBM is guilty of lifting SCO code and
> >> putting it into Linux I think SCO does have the right to get a bit
> >> upset about it, after all I wouldn't be to happy if I had to
> >> compete with a product that's just about free and contains code
> >> that I wrote.
> >
> > That's the rub. Do they, in point of fact, actually have any code
> > they own the Copyright to or the patent rights to?
>
> Of course they have lots of code with their own copyright. The
> release of JFS was one example. Probably the majority of AIX was
> developed by IBM, not by AT&T. It's rather similar to the issue with
> 4BSD in the early 90s: with a little bit of work you could probably
> replace the entire AT&T code in AIX and have a system which did not
> require an SCO license.
I would say that that is entirely likely. AIX was developed by IBM for
IBM-specific machines running in IBM-style environments, and I can imagine
that SysVRx just _doesn't_ _cut_ _the_ _mustard_.
So, SCO's latching on the IBM for Monterey - RS-6000 was 64-bit, or am I
getting confused? - probably gave SCO much more than it gave IBM. So
ironically, if IBM donated stuff to Monterey under the terms of the agreement
and later incorporated the same stuff into Linux, it _could_ look as if they
had taken stuff from SysVRx/Unixware - stuff that SCO had never had the
opportunity to develop if it hadn't been for Monterey and IBM's pre-existing
expertise.
Just some thoughts - but if that is so, I can see why IBM's not getting too
het up about the whole muck-up.
Wesley Parish
> If you mean "is there IBM copyright code in Linux?", I think the
> answer is again yes, but it's under the GPL or possibly IPL, IBM's
> attempt at a compromise between proprietary licenses and the GPL. I
> think they've given up on the IPL now.
>
> For what it's worth, I'd be astounded if SCO's claims were found to be
> true.
>
> Greg
--
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."
Interesting. I suggest everyone interested in this fracas read the
whole scoop at (to repeat Kenneth Stailey's pointer)
http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/pr03033.html
Here's a question of interest not to the Linux community but to
the TUHS one: if, as Novell now claim, the 1995 agreement didn't
convey the UNIX copyrights to SCO, under what right did SCO issue
the Ancient UNIX Source Code agreements, whether the restrictive
version of early 1998 or the do-as-you-like Caldera letter of early
2002? Are those agreements really valid?
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
M. Warner Losh:
There's another article that is saying that there are 10-15
line snippets scattered all through the kernel. Give me a break.
That claim is so absurd as to be not credible on its face. I can see
one or two files, maybe stretching my disbelief to its limits, but I
can't see anything more pervasive than that.
I agree that it sounds unlikely, and I won't give it much credit
until SCO makes its evidence generally available. But it's by no
means absurd. Suppose SCO invented some whizzy data structure and
associated code conventions to afford especially efficient
interprocessor locks. That could show up in fragments scattered
throughout the kernel, and the idea itself could in fact be
valuable intellectual property and the fragments a demonstration
that the idea was stolen.
Or suppose the issue at hand was a particular way to implement a
file system switch. I was involved in adding such a thing to an
old-fashioned kernel myself; it touches many little pieces of
code all over the kernel that happen to do certain things to or
with in-core i-nodes. If I was worried that someone had stolen
such work wholesale, part of what I would look for would indeed
be scattered fragments.
As I say, there's no useful evidence on view at all, therefore
there is no useful evidence that what I am describing is what
the fuss is about.
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
Hi,
I have a cont.a.z I would like to extract. When I run it through Solaris
unpack(1) there are no complaints but then I go to unarchive it with either my
3BSD derived ar11 port or Warren's 2.9BSD newoldar and get:
$ file cont.a
cont.a: old PDP-11 archive
$ ar11 tv cont.a
rwx---r-- 2/0 3505 Aug 20 17:07 1976 alog.mat
rw----r-- 2/0 273 Jan 3 05:14 1978 assem
rwx---r-- 2/0 6332 Aug 20 17:07 1976 atan.mat
r-s--x-w- 9/49170995977 Oct 22 01:48 1974 1
1
1
1
1
ar11: phase error on 1
1
1
1
1
Same thing with newoldar. I'm thinking Solaris unpack was incompatible with
the pack that was used to make the cont.a.z. Possibly endian issues.
I go poking around for pack(1) in V7 and PWB and 2.11BSD but can't find
anything. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Ken
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
In article by Robertdkeys(a)aol.com:
> Warren... is there a non-broken 4.3BSD-Tahoe set somewhere?
> Bob
As in a bootable 4.3BSD-Tahoe kit? As far as I know, no. The Unix Archive
has a broken copy in 4BSD/Distributions/4.3BSD-Tahoe, indicating that
both usr.tar and src.tar are broken.
It might/should be possible to merge files from the CRSG CD set from Kirk
to recreate these tar files.
Anybody out there have an unbroken Tahoe release?
Warren
Aharon Robbins:
I just saw this:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/nosecrets/
This either Very Smart or Very Dumb, I'm not sure which.
I will just point out the recursive conflict when he says
I can't talk about how this information will be applied, nor by
who. You'll have to trust me, or at any rate my record as
ambassador to the community ...
I find it hard to take a secret No Secrets campaign seriously.
If I am to be used as an example of something or to promote some
cause, I think it's only fair that the campaigner tell me just
what he's up to first.
That such a campaign exists in the current context also sounds to
me like an admission that substantial parts of Linux were in fact
lifted directly from a licensed UNIX. That that might be so seems
surprising; that someone would want to prove it was OK even more so.
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON