In a new court document, the SCO Group criticizes Linus Torvalds, the guardian and copyright holder of the freely shared Linux operating system. Update: Two more articles, one at TheInquirer, one at Forbes.
I.B.M.’s Opponent in Suit Criticizes Linux Advocate
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
“I.B.M.’s Opponent in Suit Criticizes Linux Advocate”
What an odd, indirect headline.
It implies that IBM only has one opponent in a any suit, and that Linus is merely an advocate of linux.
How about “SCO Criticizes Torvalds”?
-Hugh
Tell that to NYTimes.
I was thinking the same thing…Linus is just a tad more than a Linux advocate
That’d be like calling George W. Bush a “Washington D.C. resident”
It seems to me that all of this FUD-slinging by SCO is really highlighting the fact that the openness of Linux’s code makes it easier to identify improper code (if any) and therefore discourage coders from integrating inappropriate code. Such safeguards are absent from the development process of proprietary OSes – indeed, who would ever find out if copyrighted code found itself in Windows without it’s user content? Such a dirty little secret could remain undisclosed for years, well past the time where the product had become obsolete and the company could no longer be prosecuted.
This leads me to think that independent reviewing bodies should be set up to audit the code of proprietary vendors to make sure that it does not contain inappropriate code, and “blow the whistle” if it ever found any by alerting the copyright holders. This would require a massive infrastructure and would probably cost a lot of money, but it would be the only way to deal fairly with the issue (and, if SCO ever won its case, would be the only way to offer the required legal safeguards against possible lawsuits to those who would license the software products).
Does the computer industry at large really want to let SCO open this Pandora’s box? I doubt it, but these are the logical consequences of their legal actions…
I keep wondering when (or if) someone is going to slap the SCO jerks down really good. It is as plain as the nose on my face:
Everyone knows IBM. They are a big problem for Microsoft. SCO is being used as a lackey for Microsoft’s goal of discredting Linux, and SCO is taking advantage of the public’s general ignorance of the way people develop software.
When is someone with as much money and clout (or more) going to handle this? It would certainly be a good signal that such people are grateful for the free labor that brought Linux to them in the first place.
Has anyone yet addressed the issue (in public, and clearly so everyone can understand it,) that the situation is no different for proprietary software? If your son came up with an amazing new piece of code and made it freely available, with no restrictions other than that it be shared, how would we know that a proprietary-software maker didn’t steal the code, make it look like they developed it themselves, and then sue you for copyright violation?
How to Win Friends and Influence People. Oh wait that’s already been done. Maybe they could write a book called How to alienate yourslef from every person in I.T. in the entire world.
From the article “SCO executives assert there is a “don’t ask, don’t tell” mentality toward intellectual property that pervades the Linux programming culture”
What f**king bulls**t. I really can’t wait for SCO to smacked down for all this FUD and slander. What they are doing is simply illegal. You can’t keep making false statement like they do and get away with it.
Like SCO said there will be a day of reckoning but its going to be SCO who gets bent over. Me goes to vomit aftering having to read this garbage.
SCO this. SCO that.
SCO sues IBM. SCO Sues Linux distributors. SCO sues your grandma for picking up a Linux box
Someone just tell me when the whole SCO thing is over and done with because it is now getting to be like a circus gone horribly wrong.
Yeah, nothing short of a full audit of every software will do it. I bet you there are probably one billion cases where people are using free labour from GPled products in proprietary products.
What I would like to know is: how is Linus supposed to know if a piece of submitted code belongs to somebody else anyway? Linux developers have no not have any access to the SCO source, so how they know if any submitted code is stolen? The companies that complain are still the ones that wrap their source inside proprietary walls protected by secretive NDAs.
There’s only one way to deal with this issue: if you find someone submitted your secret code, ask to have it removed. That’s the normal way to deal with it. You would normally only go to court when the persons refuses to remove the code.
SCO distributed Linux, so they too are guilty. Or maybe they are not, even you argue that one cannot be guilty by accident. In which case, the idea that you can sue other Linux companies who supposedly distributed sco code.
I wonder if it’s possible to include a (legally valid) clause in future version of GPL, BSD and other OSS licenses that would effectively make the person who has illegally put somebody else’s code in the software solely responsible for any consecutive damages. As far as I understand the current situation, now you can be liable even if you’re just a user and didn’t know about the infringement… I think it’s wrong.
Damnit SCO, it’s GNU/Linux, not Linux.
Linux is just the kernel.
Couldn’t resist.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/18/cz_dl_0618linux.html
Maybe this is the newspaper’s way of conveying just how piddly SCO is. The only thing that makes them significant is the IBM connection.
This might be a long nap. I suspect that SCO does have (or at least believes they have) some grounds here as it is at least possible that tainted code could have been contributed back at some point – SCO’s point regarding no gate keeper actively filtering code for potential IP violations is interesting and I suspect potentially more valid than anything else I have read regarding this case.
Either way I suspect companies whom created/own their IP outright and can prove the origin of the src will grow exponentially in value as a result of this case.
I was wondering if other opponents of IBM all wear t-shirts
Well, for the NYT the article wasn’t bad. Imagine Tom’s Hardware writing about WMD…
I was already a bit worried that SCO could not generate any news today. Huh.
> I was wondering if other opponents of IBM all wear t-shirts
No, their opponents are always in suits. And friends are in tuxes.
yes it certainly is and it suggests that SCO, its predecesor Caldera, its CEO, and its parent company make a living out of suing people. This just seems to be the latest chapter of that. so i have to echo other comments on here. Its about time someone teaches these people a lesson (sorry i just hate litigous parasites). I hope IBM runs these people into the ground. Make them a victim of their own device and sue them to oblivion (yes i do see the irony in suggesting that).
sounds to me like the NY Times has no desire to provide SCO with free publicity for a case that is questionable at best and based almost entirely on a media blitz of FUD.
It seems to me that all of this FUD-slinging by SCO is really highlighting the fact that the openness of Linux’s code makes it easier to identify improper code (if any) and therefore discourage coders from integrating inappropriate code. Such safeguards are absent from the development process of proprietary OSes – indeed, who would ever find out if copyrighted code found itself in Windows without it’s user content? Such a dirty little secret could remain undisclosed for years, well past the time where the product had become obsolete and the company could no longer be prosecuted.
Bingo !
Excellent point, very well phrazed. I like this perspective.
Linux is better from IP standpoint.
If something is copied then we will all know it ASAP because it is out in the open.
However, if a proprietary software developer decides to copy…No one ever knows (unless it is obvious in the User Interface)
Those companies that are afraid of GPL are the ones that have tendency and intention to violate Intellectual property in concealed ways and behind closed doors (they want to preserve that practice for now and the future)…
Well, actually in this case, Linux is right. They are talking about kernel code not gnu tools. So calling it GNU/Linux is misleading. (I know you are being sarcastic about GNU/Linux, just think you picked wrong one to express your sarcasm)
Price Change %Change
6.80 -.9000 -11.69 SCO
84.78 .4800 .57 IBM
The dirtiest trick ever: Straw Man Fallacy. SCO monkeys consciously misrepresent Mr. Torvalds’ position on the issue and make it look like he is actually _encouraging_ stealing code (even though it is not the case at all). Then they propmtly criticize and debunk their own misrepresentation and declare intellectual victory of sorts.
Evil.
…After practicing few years of their law-suit-business, they figured that they could make a biggest money ever by “contributing” their unix-code into the open-source development-process. Caldera was a suitable “pot”, seen as “part of a community”. They put in their “ingredients” (a secret recipe – you know…), let it cook some years and – voilà – it was ready when the big money got interested! I just hope that everything they “contributed” gets removed from GNU/linux, and these (Canopy-) “workmen” don’t get a single cent for their efforts!
I know, I know, flame wars are ridiculous and so on and so on. But I am really starting to get annoyed with Forbes.com’s consequent Linux-hostility. This is too much!
Criticism of Linux is great, as long as it is constructive (constructive criticism only improves stuff), but the reporters over at Forbes all seem to prejudge Linux from rumours and FUD. I think I’ll just boycot them…
And they don’t seem to have any respect of the Linux community either.
Sorry for spamming… 😉
– Simon
let’s not lose focus here. SCO is generating all that FUD to generate this kind of press atention and talk, but the actual complain filed is the breach of agreement with IBM. Their second claim, that they own rights on linux, is something that will take years to be decided, if it ever gets to court.
Now, to counterattack their FUD claims that linux is so evil, can an expert in unix and linux post why SCO unix “sucks”? there must be a reason (other than price) why nobody buys their star product while still other versions of unix are still selling well.
Well, actually in this case, Linux is right. They are talking about kernel code not gnu tools. So calling it GNU/Linux is misleading. (I know you are being sarcastic about GNU/Linux, just think you picked wrong one to express your sarcasm)
Well, I understand that, but then again, didn’t SCO say when this started that they WEREN’T talking about the Linux kernel itself, but libraries instead?
When is somebody going to make a “ticker-tape” program to run at the bottom of my screen to update me on SCO stories as they happen?
What if SCO claims are true ?
What if that all the hype about a free modern OS is crashing like a fragile card house ?
What if it turns out that all the linuks stuff is really
nothing else than a clone mildly speaking.
What if it turns out that this is the biggest robbery of ip ever sold as the biggest thing since the invention of sliced bread ?
Than it will be obvious that the once admired wunderkind is nothing else than a charlatan capable using copy and paste and a compiler.
This actually all falls back on GNU and will discredit all the really honest coders.
1) IBM has a license to use and sale software based on the System V code.
2) The license states that IBM may not show the code to anyone outside of IBM, or it’ll lose it’s license.
3) IBM developes/patents/copyrights code and add it to the System V base; creating AIX.
4) IBM then takes their code out of AIX and modifies it to work with Linux. Note that no SCO code is in the ported code.
5) SCO claims that since the was designed to work with System V at the kernel level that the code is therefor System V IP and they have control over it.
6) Because the IBM code is controlled by SCO, SCO caims IBM violated their license and revokes it.
Note: The thousands of lines of code SCO keeps claiming is in Linux is accually IBM code. Namely: NUMA, RCU(?), and JFS.
The old car example:
I make cars (myCar). I grant you a license to modify myCars and sell them under your name (yourCar). The license states that you can’t give out my design/tech information to anyone. You replace my carborater with a fuel injection system. Later you give your fuel injection system to (hisCar) company. I sue you for giving away my IP to hisCar because you couldn’t have designed the fuel injection system with out my help (I gave you the design/tech information used to develope the fuel injection system; thus, I own the fuel injection system).
I don’t get it.
Troll
If you knew just a little about how software is built, you would realise a post like this one can only be considered as trolling.
I tought radio animators where the only ones to be this uneducated.
The GPL has ruined the software industry. For example, lets consider a few scenarios:
1) A commercial company writes a graphics package for which no free equivalent exists. They profit.
2) Developers write a BSD licensed graphics package. The commercial company can take the BSD code, improve it, and profit.
3) Developers write a GPL licensed graphics package. Now, the commercial company cannot use the code! They have to write, from scratch, something that beats the GPL’d code, otherwise they will _not_ profit!
Can you see the problem here? A growing body of GPL’d code gradually increases the barrier of entry for commerical software until it becomes uneconomical to do any commercial development at all.
I think the dot-com crash and recent economic troubles in our country were caused by GPL’d code and Linux. I want to bloody the nose of every Linux geek out there for doing this, because of them I’ve now lost my job. I hope SCO wins.
Welcome to the ‘Open Market’.
You should look for a more sophisticated artist name than anonymous.
Maybe Soper-Intellilent.
And an other one for free.
I actually forgot to conclude that linuks is going to be the next OS2 since only Soper-Intellilent folks are using this.
You have a great day.
So you are angry that there are so many nice GPL programs out there that you can’t rip of and make money from?
Maybe you lost your job when your boss got tired of paying for bsd produkts you just changed a bit?
No, the dot-com crash was caused by people scaming lots of money
from rich people telling them that they will make a big proffit. Then spent that money on huge salaries for people that sat on their ass al day long doing nothing and on new cool servers or other toys for the office. They all had strnage bussnies plans like selling sox over Internet and all kind of crap.
The vast majority of developers, myself included, write software for internal use or commercial packages that are so specific in function as to have absoultely no use to anyone but for the specific business entities we target.
The only people to gain from us having our code open is our competitors.
“I think the dot-com crash and recent economic troubles in our country were caused by GPL’d code and Linux. I want to bloody the nose of every Linux geek out there for doing this, because of them I’ve now lost my job. I hope SCO wins.”
It sounds like you’re joking or trolling but here I go anyway.
If you were in the Business of writting OS’s or graphics libraries commercially, then I can see how you would have a problem with GPL’d competetion.
But like I said, most developers work on much more specific function software and can greatly benefit by using open source software to aid their development.
Our application is a J2EE app and we use JBoss (an LGPL J2EE app server) to develop our product. I’ve been coding all day in NetBeans (another open source app.) This saved our company a lot of money. Having 4 developers, it would have cost us $12,000 alone for JBuilder licenses.
General purpose software like IDE’s, Word processors, Graphics libraries and OS’s are a commodity. Custom software that solves specific business purposes is where the money is and what most developers work on.
You can mock him all you want, but that anonymous guy was right. Perhaps you should actually read serious articles on the SCO case instead of spouting off inane comments.
Two things:
a) Blaming the GPL for you losing your job is pretty pathetic. The dot-com bust is due not to the use of GPLed software, but rather to the lack of a viable “get-rich-quick” business model for the Internet. I know, I’ve been there (fortunately, I now work in the video game industry which was shielded from the dot-com debacle). This has nothing to do with the GPL.
b) You seem to think that the only way to make a living as a programmer/computer engineer is to write proprietary software for a commercial company. But this isn’t written in stone anywhere – there are other ways for programmers to earn a living! Sure, you’ll have to adapt – those are the breaks, man! Think of all the phone operators who lost their jobs when programmers like you pushed them into obsolescence by replacing them with automated systems…they had to adapt, didn’t they? Well, so will you. Or you could always roll over and die – your choice.
Here’s a hint buddy ! Write a better applications and keep improving it with features people need/want and you won’t hae any problems. Do not use eye-candy and hype to sell your product because after awhile people catch on to that little scam. Oh yeah as everyone else stated the .com bubble blew up because of VC’s running around funding companies which had no way of making real profits in the real world. GPL had nothing to do with it. So go back to that troll cave buddy.
GPL will only affect generic programs for quite sometime. It was designed for the everyday applications like OS, Compiler, Word Processing, E-Mail, …
Like “ph34r m3” said, most programs are employed to develope custom programs for then company, create interfaces between vendor supplied programs, and to customize vendor supplied programs.
The advantage of GPL is that I can use any GPLed program and customize it for for my company (I don’t even have to replease my customization back the community because I’m not distributing the program). If I want to and my boss allows me to, I can submit the changes back to the community to improve the application for everyone.
The modified LGPL license is used with library functions. This license will let you use link to a LGPL library with out making your program Open Source. The limitation here is that I can’t modify the library with having to supply the modified source code to anyone I sale my program to.
The BSD sytle license will let you take the program, modify it and then sale it. The only limitation here is that you must document that your program is based on the BSD program.
If you want to make money and still use the GPL, try this: Write a program, release the standard version as GPL, & sale a commersal version as Closed Source. You can then use the community to improve your program; the limitation is that you must leave the community enhancements in the standard version. If the differences between the standard and commersal version is limited to plug-ins then this will work and be permissable under the GPL.
Take a look at Gtkmm, it’s the most sophisticated modern C++ GUI library in the world and it is licensed with the LGPL (lesser GPL). This means that the Gtkmm libraries themselves are open source, so that means that they will have a long life, because no one vendor can shut them down or control them, however the applications that you develop using Gtkmm can be commercial applications. There is nothing making you give up your source code. It is the perfect solution.
SCO sues “Waddles,” the fuzzy fairy penguin from the Toronto Zoo.
“Waddles has knowingly been involved in the misappropriation of our unIntellectual Property,” McBird uttered to a sea of reporters. “Our UP lawyers have been selected from the most widely renowned polar bears for just this case.”
“Waddles chose to represent the Linux crowd when he chose to be a penguin. He must compensate us for the losses that he has caused.”
Mr Ghod, Waddles’ Creator, was unavailable for comment.
Waddles did not seem concerned about the news, instead nibbling on some choice fish and taking a brisk swim, before compiling the latest development kernel and cackling maniacally.
— Source: Nope. I’m not gonna show you. But it’s pretty similar to code produced by an infinite amount of monkeys with the appropriate amount of typewriters.
Take tongue, place firmly in cheek…
Om a group I belong to we were discussing the outcome of the Apple records/Apple computer lawsuit over music infringments due to the superior music capabilities of the Apple ][gs series. I researched the suit and found these results:
The lawsuit was dropped after SCO found out that Apple records once had a stripped-down cassette version of Unix called UniZX running on a 2K Sinclair ZX-81 in the studio gopher’s broom closet. They have sued Apple records claiming that since all the Beatles albums were produced at that same studio SCO now owns the rights to the Beatles record collection as a pre-derivitive work stemming from that later use of UniZX.
The open group is claiming trademark infringment saying that the Apple records trademark resembles a small icon they have posted on their webpage and that since the Beatles songs have not been approved as being true Unix then they are using the trademark illegally and they want $110,000 and a mint collection of Beatles vinyl albums for continued use of the trademark.
The holders of the estate of one “Johnny Appleseed” have sued Apple records, Apple computers and 2.3 million grocery stores because they claim under the DMCA to own the first copyright on the apple image and “use of apples to spread information over a large area”. Since Apple records and Apple computers (as well as grocery store ads) use the apple idea & image for spreading information they believe they are entitled to compensation for that use.
IBM produced a stone tablet that proves they own the patent, trademark, copyright and IP rights of the word “copyright” and every word and idea that can be formed by any character in the heiroglyph, cuniform, ASCII, EBCDIC & Unicode character sets therefore an IBM spokesperson claimed “No one should worry, keep using PC-DOS, uh no, OS/2, uh no, AIX, uh no, Linux…confound it! Which op sys is it this week?”
SCO then showed a document (found by a janitor under a loose board in the SCO outhouse) that was an amendment to the original contract with IBM that gave SCO rights to everything that IBM ever produced. It was clearly readable (even with the smudging from the wet ink) and a 14-year-old legal expert in Toledo Ohio stated “This paper added-on stuff with the little curly writing is clearly enforcible, and I think it applies to Microsoft thingies too, wanna play Unreal Tournament?”.
Ballmer at Microsoft had little comment (odd for him). He was reported to flap his arms like a chicken and gesture at the portraits of Linus Torvalds & Steve Jobs and say “The eyes! They keep winking and blinking! We’ll buy them, we’ll buy them all, HAAAAHAAAA!”
If one digitizes and plays a certain Beatles song backwards in Apple ][ mode on a MAC LC2 running Yellow Dog Linux under Win2K operating under OS/2 in a VPC box on the Mac System 6 desktop the words come out clearly: “insanity…insanity…insanity”
Removing tongue from cheek now…
Can you see the problem here? A growing body of GPL’d code gradually increases the barrier of entry for commerical software until it becomes uneconomical to do any commercial development at all.
Then why is it that Apple is profitable and is producing software based on open source GPLed code?
I don’t think your argument works at all. Just be a little creative and selective about what you use from open source and give back the specific item that was changed and you can still produce products that make money.
Further…how is it that companies like Red Hat make money?
I don’t think GPL has ruined the software industry at all. It may have changed it…but it has changed for the better.
I am sick of this. Did SCO even show the “code” they own yet?
Did they even go to court yet? Our sucky **s legal system would not give them what they deserve anyway. I hope Linus jumps on them & slaps the sh*t out of them. Linux is like 20 years old, why is this crap going on now?
Actually “Nicohlas” may have a point.
The 80 lines of code that SCO has shown to date – when was it allegedly inserted into the kernel?
IIRC, if a company does not exercise its rights to IP for a certain period of time, they lose the protection for that IP.
Facts:
1. With commercial programs that I do, I can make any licence with them and we can make profits:)
2. BSD licence is better than GPL licence.
3. FREEWARE is better than any GPL licence.
4. If you are a programmer and do it GPL, why don’t you make it FREEWARE or PUBLIC DOMAIN?
5. GPL kill’s the programmer, because you “programmer” don’t be paid for doing GPL code. You only be paid from organizations that supported GPL.
6. GPL software based is killing actual large software company’s that are making profit from their commercial products.
7. I see lots of manipulations in websites telling that GPL is better than commercial products. How do I make profit from GPL? Why I would make a GPL program instead of a commercial program with my own licence?
8. When you tell a client that your commercial product cost $100 and he know that there are a GPL program that do the same for free, than you loose your client. Where is your profit? How do you pay to your employers???
Facts:
1. With commercial programs that I do, I can make any licence with them and we can make profits:)
2. BSD licence is better than GPL licence.
3. FREEWARE is better than any GPL licence.
4. If you are a programmer and do it GPL, why don’t you make it FREEWARE or PUBLIC DOMAIN?
5. GPL kill’s the programmer, because you “programmer” don’t be paid for doing GPL code. You only be paid from organizations that supported GPL.
6. GPL software based is killing actual large software company’s that are making profit from their commercial products.
7. I see lots of manipulations in websites telling that GPL is better than commercial products. How do I make profit from GPL? Why I would make a GPL program instead of a commercial program with my own licence?
8. When you tell a client that your commercial product cost $100 and he know that there are a GPL program that do the same for free, than you loose your client. Where is your profit? How do you pay to your employers???
Facts:
1. True – but you can also sell your own GPL code
2. “BSD licence is better than GPL licence” only for developers who are like to use other peoples work without pay back – ie. selfish cheap skates who don’t want to pay for anything.
3. “FREEWARE is better than any GPL licence” – ditto 2.
4. “If you are a programmer and do it GPL, why don’t you make it FREEWARE or PUBLIC DOMAIN?” – Why should they? Whats wrong with the principle of improving things for everybody and not being selfish?
5. “GPL kill’s the programmer, because you “programmer” don’t be paid for doing GPL code. You only be paid from organizations that supported GPL.” – Complete Rubbish !! Check the staff or SuSE/Red Hat/IBM/HP etc
6. “GPL software based is killing actual large software company’s that are making profit from their commercial products.” – Isn’t competition great – Change your business model
7. “I see lots of manipulations in websites telling that GPL is better than commercial products. How do I make profit from GPL? Why I would make a GPL program instead of a commercial program with my own licence?” – There’s nothing to stop you selling your GPL code – if it includes GPL code from another developer, contact them and arrange a new licence for yourself that permits sale.
8. “When you tell a client that your commercial product cost $100 and he know that there are a GPL program that do the same for free, than you loose your client. Where is your profit? How do you pay to your employers???” – Provide a decent service to your client then you’ll keep him. And I never want to pay my employers but i pay my employees.
I think you should do some more reading/understanding of the GPL.
SCO would be unable to persue its antics here in Australia due to our different legal system. Here unsuccessful plaintiffs in civil lawsuits are almost always required to pay the winners legal costs. In very large lawsuits such as SCO vs IBM the plaintiff (SCO) may be required to set aside funds prior to trial to pay the defendants (IBM) costs if the lawsuit is unsuccessful. Also cases that don’t have a strong chance of success are not usually allowed to go to trial.
2. “BSD licence is better than GPL licence” only for developers who are like to use other peoples work without pay back – ie. selfish cheap skates who don’t want to pay for anything.
The same case apply’s to GPL. If I contribute to GPL I won’t be paid for my work, and you could sell it and improve it. Look at Tolvards, he make linux kernel, he is paid from company’s that distribute linux? Of course not… With GPL we take others work and sell it.
Well its about time we realize that all the rise in Sco isnt due infact to the market.. but due to buys and sells by the blanket company that owns sco, the Canopy company in Utah. While Darl McBribe, Chris Somfag and Stowell ( the three stooges) rattle the swords, and talk about protecting intellectual property, the higher ups in Canopy preach about “being Hurt” by abuses to their property. We know that the whole purchase of SysV code occurred for one reason.. the same reason that DRDOS was purchased, as a target for litigation. I strongly urge everyone in the it community and the oss community to boycot and communicate vociferously against all companies under the Canopy group.
What proof is there that some programmer at SCO didn’t pinch code from the Linux kernel code base at some point in time, and now SCO is claiming it was the other way around? i.e. what historical support is there as to where the code originated in the first place?
“With GPL we take others work and sell it.”
Yes, but then the person who made the original work can sell it as well. They couldn’t do that if they released it under BSD and then someone took their work and did not re-release that work under the same license…It seems to me that you don’t understand the GPL very much to be so vocal in criticizing it…