SCO copied Linux code into SCO Unix, theINQUIRER.net

SCO copied Linux code into SCO Unix, theINQUIRER.net

Post by Daero » Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:54:58



http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9952
SCO might recycle AT&T's Unix blunder
Deja vu all over again
Egan Orion,  June 11 2003

"Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it." - George
Santayana

REPORTS HAVE SURFACED that SCO might be in violation of the GNU General
Public License (GPL). eWEEK broke this story, writing:

"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."

According to eWEEK's confidential source, SCO's coders "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."
---

Ahem, yes. How much trouble might SCO be facing? What does this mean?

How major, you ask? Well, for starters everyone who owns a copy of Linux
will be able to sue SCO for withholding that source code in violation of
the GPL, and -- should SCO's misappropriation be shown -- likely win.

By anyone's count, the population that owns Linux is in the millions.
-------

 
 
 

SCO copied Linux code into SCO Unix, theINQUIRER.net

Post by David Kastru » Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:04:21



> According to eWEEK's confidential source, SCO's coders "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."
> ---

> Ahem, yes. How much trouble might SCO be facing? What does this
> mean?

> How major, you ask? Well, for starters everyone who owns a copy of
> Linux will be able to sue SCO for withholding that source code in
> violation of the GPL, and -- should SCO's misappropriation be shown
> -- likely win.

Nonsense.  The only persons that can sue are those who have had their
copyrightable material misappropriated.  The authors.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

 
 
 

SCO copied Linux code into SCO Unix, theINQUIRER.net

Post by Mark » Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:26:56



> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9952
> SCO might recycle AT&T's Unix blunder
> Deja vu all over again
> Egan Orion,  June 11 2003

> "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it." - George
> Santayana

> REPORTS HAVE SURFACED that SCO might be in violation of the GNU General
> Public License (GPL). eWEEK broke this story, writing:

> "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."

> According to eWEEK's confidential source, SCO's coders "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."
> ---

> Ahem, yes. How much trouble might SCO be facing? What does this mean?

> How major, you ask? Well, for starters everyone who owns a copy of Linux
> will be able to sue SCO for withholding that source code in violation of
> the GPL, and -- should SCO's misappropriation be shown -- likely win.

> By anyone's count, the population that owns Linux is in the millions.
> -------

This should be interesting, if true.
 
 
 

SCO copied Linux code into SCO Unix, theINQUIRER.net

Post by Stephen How » Fri, 13 Jun 2003 02:13:23


Quote:> "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."

> According to eWEEK's confidential source, SCO's coders "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."
> ---

> Ahem, yes. How much trouble might SCO be facing? What does this mean?

As a matter of interest, has any court of law enforced the GPL for companies
in violation?

I have seen companies back down once pointed out that they are in violation
of the GPL, but I have never read of any case of penalties being applied to
companies that are in violation and will not back down.

Until I see a case, it remains academic. Any URLs?

Stephen Howe

 
 
 

SCO copied Linux code into SCO Unix, theINQUIRER.net

Post by Jim Tric » Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:31:54


<snip>

Quote:> As a matter of interest, has any court of law enforced the GPL for
> companies in violation?

> I have seen companies back down once pointed out that they are in
> violation of the GPL, but I have never read of any case of penalties
> being applied to companies that are in violation and will not back
> down.

> Until I see a case, it remains academic. Any URLs?

Of course there are no URLs as so far every company has "backed down".  
Eben Moglen has been desperate for some one dumb enough to let the case
go to court.  But the FSF seems to have an allergy to frivilous
litigation, so gives companies every chance to satisfy them that there
is indeed no violation of the GPL, or to rectify the matter if there
has been a breach.  In the words of Dave Turner, GPL Compliance
Engineer re the recent CISCO case:

"We handle many GPL violations every week. It can take time to resolve
GPL violations, but we almost always resolve them amicably. We are
trying to do the same in this case. "

The closest to a court ruling that I am aware of is the MySQL AB vs
Progress Software Corp. where Judge Saris stated that she sees the GNU
GPL to be both enforcable and binding.   But that is all rather
preliminary stuff.  

The FSF press release on this is at:

http://www.gnu.org/press/2002-03-01-pi-MySQL.txt

Regards
Jim

 
 
 

SCO copied Linux code into SCO Unix, theINQUIRER.net

Post by Peter Jense » Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:39:09



>> Ahem, yes. How much trouble might SCO be facing? What does this mean?

> As a matter of interest, has any court of law enforced the GPL for
> companies in violation?

> I have seen companies back down once pointed out that they are in
> violation of the GPL, but I have never read of any case of penalties
> being applied to companies that are in violation and will not back
> down.

> Until I see a case, it remains academic. Any URLs?

Erik?  Erik Funkenbusch?  Is that you in there?

--
PeKaJe

It is not well to be thought of as one who meekly submits to insolence
and intimidation.

 
 
 

SCO copied Linux code into SCO Unix, theINQUIRER.net

Post by Jim Lasco » Sat, 14 Jun 2003 00:50:32




> >> Ahem, yes. How much trouble might SCO be facing? What does this mean?

> > As a matter of interest, has any court of law enforced the GPL for
> > companies in violation?

> > I have seen companies back down once pointed out that they are in
> > violation of the GPL, but I have never read of any case of penalties
> > being applied to companies that are in violation and will not back
> > down.

> > Until I see a case, it remains academic. Any URLs?

> Erik?  Erik Funkenbusch?  Is that you in there?

I dont know but Ive got a Serious issue with Erick
Ive shown him nothing but respect for his Great Knowlege and he then
resorts to calling me Names
No I DO believe he is Paid by M$ but that is not derogatory when I
claim that he is its just my Strong Belief.

BTW Erick my Proper name is James not the Slap in my face name you
used "Jamie"
So I would hope being the Upstanding guy you are that you issue me a
Public Apology.

Jim

 
 
 

SCO copied Linux code into SCO Unix, theINQUIRER.net

Post by Jim Richardso » Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:56:46


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12 Jun 2003 15:50:32 -0700,



>> >> Ahem, yes. How much trouble might SCO be facing? What does this mean?

>> > As a matter of interest, has any court of law enforced the GPL for
>> > companies in violation?

>> > I have seen companies back down once pointed out that they are in
>> > violation of the GPL, but I have never read of any case of penalties
>> > being applied to companies that are in violation and will not back
>> > down.

>> > Until I see a case, it remains academic. Any URLs?

>> Erik?  Erik Funkenbusch?  Is that you in there?

> I dont know but Ive got a Serious issue with Erick
> Ive shown him nothing but respect for his Great Knowlege and he then
> resorts to calling me Names
> No I DO believe he is Paid by M$ but that is not derogatory when I
> claim that he is its just my Strong Belief.

> BTW Erick my Proper name is James not the Slap in my face name you
> used "Jamie"
> So I would hope being the Upstanding guy you are that you issue me a
> Public Apology.

You'd have a valid point if you stopped misspelling his name.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+6SFOd90bcYOAWPYRAteGAJ9VYmYTBBeCC5KWgQbvxEnehH1lmQCfWL5F
2zBw0plYP+1CyDXShErm1gI=
=x9jo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson         http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock

Linux, because eventually, you grow up enough to be trusted with a fork()

 
 
 

SCO copied Linux code into SCO Unix, theINQUIRER.net

Post by Kelsey Bjarnaso » Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:14:58



>> "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."

>> According to eWEEK's confidential source, SCO's coders "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."
>> ---

>> Ahem, yes. How much trouble might SCO be facing? What does this mean?

> As a matter of interest, has any court of law enforced the GPL for companies
> in violation?

> I have seen companies back down once pointed out that they are in violation
> of the GPL, but I have never read of any case of penalties being applied to
> companies that are in violation and will not back down.

> Until I see a case, it remains academic. Any URLs?

As I pointed out elsewhere, it is pointless to fight out the GPL in court.

Under existing copyright law, SCO would not be able to use the code at
all, presumably, without permission.

The GPL _grants_ privileges not allowed under copyright law.  Thus,
fighting GPL "successfully" means you've just moved from a position of
being granted rights to one of _not_ being granted rights, pretty
effectively eliminating any hope you may have of claiming legal use of the
code.

Were the GPL restrictive or prohibitive in nature, perhaps fighting it
would make sense.  However it isn't; it gives rights where none existed
before.  As the "consumer", I am perfectly within my rights to absolutely,
completely and totally ignore the GPL and just be bound by copyright.
Somehow I can't see anyone seeing a point in attacking the GPL; it just
doesn't make any sense.  There's nothing to be gained by doing it.

--
http://rkc.silversapphire.com
Managed Migration from Windows to Linux

 
 
 

SCO copied Linux code into SCO Unix, theINQUIRER.net

Post by Jesse F. Hugh » Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:00:11




>>> "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."

>>> According to eWEEK's confidential source, SCO's coders "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."
>>> ---

>>> Ahem, yes. How much trouble might SCO be facing? What does this mean?

>> As a matter of interest, has any court of law enforced the GPL for companies
>> in violation?

>> I have seen companies back down once pointed out that they are in violation
>> of the GPL, but I have never read of any case of penalties being applied to
>> companies that are in violation and will not back down.

>> Until I see a case, it remains academic. Any URLs?

> As I pointed out elsewhere, it is pointless to fight out the GPL in court.

> Under existing copyright law, SCO would not be able to use the code at
> all, presumably, without permission.

> The GPL _grants_ privileges not allowed under copyright law.  Thus,
> fighting GPL "successfully" means you've just moved from a position of
> being granted rights to one of _not_ being granted rights, pretty
> effectively eliminating any hope you may have of claiming legal use of the
> code.

> Were the GPL restrictive or prohibitive in nature, perhaps fighting it
> would make sense.  However it isn't; it gives rights where none existed
> before.  As the "consumer", I am perfectly within my rights to absolutely,
> completely and totally ignore the GPL and just be bound by copyright.
> Somehow I can't see anyone seeing a point in attacking the GPL; it just
> doesn't make any sense.  There's nothing to be gained by doing it.

It's not a question of "fighting" the GPL.  It's a question of whether
courts agree that the GPL grants only those rights that its adherents
claim it grants, or whether it grants greater rights than intended.

If I write a bad contract, I may accidentally grant you more rights
than I intended to grant.  In particular, if a court claims that some
of the requirements I placed on you are unenforceable, then you may
come away with all the benefits I intended, but with none of the
onerous requirements I also intended.

So, a test of the GPL in court is decidedly not pointless.

--
Jesse Hughes
"Yes, I'm one of those arrogant people who tries to be quotable.
There is actually at least one person who quotes me often."
                                                 -- James Harris

 
 
 

SCO copied Linux code into SCO Unix, theINQUIRER.net

Post by Kelsey Bjarnaso » Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:50:30


[snips]


> It's not a question of "fighting" the GPL.  It's a question of whether
> courts agree that the GPL grants only those rights that its adherents
> claim it grants, or whether it grants greater rights than intended.

Ah, yes; hadn't considered that.  Good point.

--
http://rkc.silversapphire.com
Managed Migration from Windows to Linux

 
 
 

SCO copied Linux code into SCO Unix, theINQUIRER.net

Post by David Kastru » Sat, 14 Jun 2003 15:41:37



> [snips]


> > It's not a question of "fighting" the GPL.  It's a question of
> > whether courts agree that the GPL grants only those rights that
> > its adherents claim it grants, or whether it grants greater rights
> > than intended.

> Ah, yes; hadn't considered that.  Good point.

This is comp.os.linux.advocacy.  You are not supposed to cede a point.
If this were to start a trend, we'd run out of flame wars in no time.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

 
 
 

SCO copied Linux code into SCO Unix, theINQUIRER.net

Post by Jesse F. Hugh » Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:01:45




>> [snips]


>> > It's not a question of "fighting" the GPL.  It's a question of
>> > whether courts agree that the GPL grants only those rights that
>> > its adherents claim it grants, or whether it grants greater rights
>> > than intended.

>> Ah, yes; hadn't considered that.  Good point.

> This is comp.os.linux.advocacy.  You are not supposed to cede a point.
> If this were to start a trend, we'd run out of flame wars in no time.

No kidding.  I thought about trying to keep the argument going, but
it's difficult if Kelsey is being so maliciously non-combative.

It takes two to quibble, after all.  A little cooperation would be
appreciated (and maligned, of course, in keeping up appearances 'n
'at).

--
"[I]t's good for the economy to charge for intellectual property, so
open source software cannot be good, while Microsoft is the most
far-thinking company around and is doing it all for the good of the
public." -- Linus Torvalds paraphrases Microsoft VP Craig Mundie

 
 
 

1. Novell accuses SCO of extorting money from Linux community -- THEINQUIRER.net

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9724
NOVELL ACCUSES SCO OF EXTORTING MONEY FROM LINUX COMMUNITY
Challenges SCO to substantiate claims
INQUIRER staff May 28 2003

THE SCO GROUP was issued with a dual challenge by Novell today over who
owns Unix and its intellectual property rights claims, confirming an
earlier Wall St Journal story.
-
(See Novell will challenge SCO over Unix ownership) **
-
And Novell has upped the ante against SCO, accusing it of attempting to
"extort" money out of the Linux community.

** http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9719
-------

2. US West RADSL and Red Hat 6.1 - HELP!!

3. injunction takes down SCO web site theINQUIRER.net

4. the best tutorial for configuring Unix modem

5. script kiddies copy Microsoft innovation theINQUIRER.net

6. kdbug

7. biz.sco.* replaced by comp.unix.sco.*; biz.sco.* newsgroups removed.

8. Cant update /etc/ptmp using passwd

9. How SCO Unix May, Itself, Have Code Ripped-Off From Both Linux and BSD Unix

10. Microsoft messes about with logos in ICMP packets, theINQUIRER.net

11. AOL assimilated by the Microsoft Borg THEINQUIRER.net

12. €urobabble about "open standards" from the Vole THEINQUIRER.net

13. How do you activate XP if Microsoft's shut?, theINQUIRER.net