Slashdot reports on Linus’ replies to SCO’s allegations that 65 header files were copied from UNIX.
Linus Blasts SCO’s Header Claims
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 really don’t know…
Yet another baseless claim from the dopeheads at SCO. These arse wipes have 10-15 days left untill they have to fork over code to the courts. It seems that they are trying to claw at anything to survive their impending arse wiping by IBM.
In America you are innocent until proven guilty. So far SCO has produced jack sqwat in terms of evidence.
So, perhaps SCO copied Linux source into System V… Which would make them in violation of the GPL.
Many legal experts think GPL is invalid…
How can the terms of usage that are given to software by its author be considered invalid? Either you accept them or you don’t. If you don’t then you can’t use it.
The worst part of this whole SCO thing is the fact that, if SCO wins, you won’t be able to buy Linux licences. SCO will sell them, but they will be illegal. SCO isn’t alledging that Linux is 100% their code. No, they are saying that Linux has taken bits and pieces of their code with lots of original code. That original code is GPL which says that at any point if you are unable to distribute and use it without licencing fees, you can’t use it any more.
This is the same problem that LAME gets into. LAME is illegal. If you don’t pay for the MP3 licence, you are violating that copyright and if you do pay for the MP3 licence, you are violating the LAME licence.
This is an important point since, if SCO wins, Linus can sue all the companies that bought Linux licences from SCO.
“That original code is GPL which says that at any point if you are unable to distribute and use it without licencing fees, you can’t use it any more.”
No. It means that they will have to rewrite the offending code in a way that does not infringe on SCO’s copyright, and that they will (whoever they turns out to be) probably have to pay SCO a large sum of money for past damages.
“Yet another baseless claim from the dopeheads at SCO.”
It’s statements like these that make it very hard for me (and many others) to take Linux seriously as anything more than a toy developed by immature children and adults acting like children.
The point is… You guys aren’t doing Linux any favors by making immature and childish statements like this. You may say I’m stereotyping, but these coments are way too comon from Linux people anytime someone says something bad about Linux, or anytime someone claims that Linux infringed on their copyright.
You don’t seem to have any problems when someone sues Microsoft claiming that Microsoft infringed on copyright. Yet you already have SCO marked as a villian even before you have seen any evidence.
Let’s not forget. Linus Torvalds was a CompSci student at a prominant university. Did he have access to the UNIX source code when he wrote Linux? Probably. Had he seen the UNIX source before he wrote Linux? I can just about gurantee it? Did he rip code from the UNIX source code when he wrote Linux? Who knows? Given that he was doing it as a hobby, and didn’t anticipate Linux becoming what it is today, it’s very possible he thought that ripping a little bit of code from UNIX and using it for hobby purposes wouldn’t hurt anything.
The point is, I don’t think you can say with any reasonable degree of certainty at this point, that Linux is not infringing on SCO’s copyright.
So unless you think Torvalds is a god that can’t do anything wrong, you might want to reserve judgement. Maybe Torvalds didn’t rip code. But then again, maybe he did. I will wait for the legal process to carry itself out before I decide.
I agree. That’s why I use Windows XP, designed by professionals, for professionals.
This is the first I am hearing about header files. When did SCO mention them?
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but windows 2000, which XP is based on uses a lot of BSD code, especially in terms of the TCP/IP stack. Given, they are allowed to do this, but you can’t get away from the fact that microsoft also uses some opensource code.
Many legal experts think GPL is invalid…
That’s odd, other than SCOx and their legal staff, I haven’t heard any such claims about the GPL. In fact, most of them have been to the contrary.
Eben Moglen: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sco/sco-without-fear.html
Lawrence Lessig:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001611.shtml#001611
But, if you really aren’t sure what these lawers are talking about please feel free to check out the US Code Collection, Title 17 (copyrights), which can be found here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/103.html
Plaes feel free to respond with your infinite wisdom about the legality of the GPL.
Unlike the development of most operating systems Linux was not only available in source but publically discussed at length. If you want to see Linus struggling through trying to get access to the POSIX standards or any of the other hoops he had to jump through just to get access to standards (not even source code) you can read every single post via the Google News archive of comp.os.linux.
Then again, you might consider actually reading the articles that these flamefests are attached to. Words straight from the person who coordinates the whole project might actually be worth reading or are you just on loan from Slashdot?
“That’s odd, other than SCOx and their legal staff, I haven’t heard any such claims about the GPL. In fact, most of them have been to the contrary.”
It’s probably not generally invalid. But when used on certain types of code, is most certaintly is invalid. That’s where the fuss is. There are certain cases where the GPL has been used where it is doubtful whether it is legally enforcable.
Example, I have my doubts about the legal enforcability of the GPL when used on on a DLL file, since in that case, you are simply making calls to functions in an external library. But you aren’t actually including any of that library’s code in your code.
Like most contract law, it’s not a simple question of “Yes it’s valid” or “no it’s not valid”, but a question of “Under what circumstances is it valid” and “under what circumstances is it invalid”.
“In America you are innocent until proven guilty. So far SCO has produced jack sqwat in terms of evidence.”
The first part of your statement is only partly true, in a criminal case that applies completely, but in civil court (as this is), it really isn’t “innocent until proven guilty”, it’s more like “guilty until proven innocent”, sadly.
As far as the second part, well, I would bet they would even go after Coherent, if they were still around.
*poof* SCO, be gone already.
-iGZo
“Then again, you might consider actually reading the articles that these flamefests are attached to.
#1: I do read the articles.
#2: I am very familiar with the history of UNIX. And in case you aren’t, let me give you a hint. AT&T made UNIX source code available to universities to use as a teaching tool. The catch was those universities could not in turn, republish that source code for anything other than research and teaching. This is what got UCB and BSDI in trouble. And it’s what getting Linux in trouble now.
#3: What… Do you expect that Linus is just going to incriminate himself by coming right out and saying “Yes, I ripped code from UNIX.” Sure. He’s gonna deny the charges, just like anyone else getting sued in civil court is going to do.
As someone stated above yes Microsoft did derive its TCP/IP stack from BSD code. I have,however,never seen anywhere within windows or its documentation state “This product uses code derived from BSD” or any other of the lines you must include according to the BSD licence. I dont know why more has not been made of this over the years.
“I have,however,never seen anywhere within windows or its documentation state “This product uses code derived from BSD” or any other of the lines you must include according to the BSD licence.”
The BSD license does not require you to give credit in the documentation. Only in the source code. And if you are one of the few people blessed enough by Microsoft to have been privy to the Windows source code, you will find the following comment in some of the source files:
/* Copyright Regents of the University of California at
* Berkeley */
The GPL is the subject of one of IBM’s defenses, not a subject of SCO’s claims against IBM. Issues of legality and enforceability of the GPL have nothing, nada, nichts, zero, to do with whether Linus copied header files into Linux.
You may wish to read Linus’ response, where he points out bad coding in several files that is very much the work of a computer science student rather than 20-year-old code vetted by a series of professionals, which is what Unix was at the time. He also discusses such stupidities as numbering errors differently than an Intel reference, thus accidentally ensuring Linux at that point would *not* be binary-compatible with other OSs.
Re: Windows XP, “designed by professionals for professionals” – I guess the people at Yahoo!, who use FreeBSD on their servers, and Google, who use Linux, aren’t quite as professional as you?
I happily use Windows, FreeBSD and Linux, and think comments about people (much less multi-billion dollar corporations) being “unprofessional” because they happen to use one perfectly good OS or another are quite bizarre.
>#3: What… Do you expect that Linus is just going to >incriminate himself by coming right out and saying “Yes, I >ripped code from UNIX.” Sure. He’s gonna deny the charges, >just like anyone else getting sued in civil court is going to >do.
Um, these are archived from the early 1990’s. Yeesh.
Linus’ own analysis of SCO’s new claims available here:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031222174158852
“Um, these are archived from the early 1990’s. Yeesh.”
Like I said, I will wait until the evidence is out before I decide.
I don’t know whether he ripped code or not. And neither do you. What I do know is that given what was being done with the UNIX source code at the time, it’s very possible that he did have access to it through the university, and that he had seen it.
That doesn’t mean he ripped code from it. I don’t know if he did or not. But neither do you.
”
It’s statements like these that make it very hard for me (and many others) to take Linux seriously as anything more than a toy developed by immature children and adults acting like children.
”
Yes, because web forums filled with trolls are the place where most Linux developers spend their spare time posting to. Guess what? I saw someone I know to be a Windows user sitting around rotting her lungs by smoking. Therefore, by your logic, I can extrapolate that Bill Gates will soon die of cancer?
“I am very familiar with the history of UNIX. And in case you aren’t, let me give you a hint. AT&T made UNIX source code available to universities to use as a teaching tool. The catch was those universities could not in turn, republish that source code for anything other than research and teaching. This is what got UCB and BSDI in trouble. And it’s what getting Linux in trouble now.”
Perhaps your extreme familiarity with the history of Unix extends to the fact that settlement of the “trouble” that UCB and BSDI “got into” with AT&T involved an agreement by AT&T to delete from their code 3 files they’d copied from BSD, and by UC-Berkeley to add copyright notices to 70 files that they were nevertheless allowed to continue to freely distribute? IOW, the only party that actually had to remove copied code from its distribution was AT&T (actually USL, a subsidiary of AT&T).
> I don’t know whether he ripped code or not. And neither do
> you. What I do know is that given what was being done with
> the UNIX source code at the time, it’s very possible that he
> did have access to it through the university, and that he
> had seen it.
No, Linux was originally based on Minux, and that’s where Linus began his development.
As for looking at UNIX source, the BSD lawsuit settled the dispute over what belongs to undisclosable code, and what belongs to disclosable.
However, I don’t think it is about Linus have learned any of UNIX (or C/POSIX standard for that matter) code, SCO now wanted to claim what believed to be public published materials as their own IP, SCO is trying to suggest “we own you before you started” – this is where POSIX and ctype.h issue started.
The BSD lawsuit should have settled a lot about “looking at UNIX material” question, BUT if you believe SCO, SCO has suggested BSD might come under its IP gunfire as well, so at least we should know what issue is being raised here – and where Linus credibility is deserved (he actually went out and searched for the archive about it on internet).
Basically, I will say SCO is almost to the point to suggest POSIX compliant free OS is illegal. SCO will have to prove such stretching claim.
Like most contract law, it’s not a simple question of “Yes it’s valid” or “no it’s not valid”, but a question of “Under what circumstances is it valid” and “under what circumstances is it invalid”.
Well, see, that’s your mistake. The GPL is not a contract, and is not handled at all under contract law. It really is a license.
While IANAL, this important detail (and it really is that vital) came from the words of a lawyer. Discussing the GPL under contract law is like me discussing an 18 wheeler in the world of formula 1.
just because some linux fans/zealots say immature things about this issue doesn’t mean that the whole linux thing in itself is immature or unprofessional.
what a stupid generalization, to equate a product with a fraction of its users.
Sorry, spelling mistake:
No, Linux was originally based on Minix, not Minux.
Also later version of Linux was re-written from scratch.
The fact remains that SCO has not provided anything but lies and FUD. IMHO people like those who run SCO are nothing more then dopeheads because they have not provided anything worth talking about to back up their claims. So while you may disagree with my opinion on what I think SCO and it’s leader may be you can not disagree with the fact that there is no evidence to date that Linux and it’s programmers and coders stole anything from SCO. Linus may have been exposed to Unix but that does not make any sort of a case. If SCO really had stolen code to present they would of done so a long time ago rather then drag things out like they have.
Licenses are a type of contract. And yes, IAAL, and yes, I have drafted contracts. Contracts are nothing more than agreements that in return for my doing x, you will do y. Software licenses are a subset of contracts where x = allowing you to use my software.
Which of course is utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the GPL is valid, which in turn is utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether Linus copied code.
“just because some linux fans/zealots say immature things about this issue doesn’t mean that the whole linux thing in itself is immature or unprofessional.”
For more immaturity see comments in Linux kernel source code.
“No, Linux was originally based on Minux, and that’s where Linus began his development.”
Linux is not based on Minix at all. In fact, Torvalds developed Linux because he didn’t like Minix.
The design philosophies aren’t even the same. Minix is a microlithic kernel design. Linux uses a monolithic kernel.
“As for looking at UNIX source, the BSD lawsuit settled the dispute over what belongs to undisclosable code, and what belongs to disclosable.”
That settlement only applied to BSD. It does not in any way, shape, or form protect Linux from being sued by whoever the current owner of UNIX is.
That’s absurd. A license is a contract you accept by using the software, which gives you the right to own and operate a piece of IP owned by the company. I could equally well make “licenses” for my property, but it would in fact just be a contract people must accept before stepping on my lawn.
“Well, see, that’s your mistake. The GPL is not a contract, and is not handled at all under contract law. It really is a license.”
A license is a form of contract. It is an agreement between two parties. In the case of the license. “In exchange for the right to use this software, you agree to the following terms…”
ie: The software vendor agrees to let you use the software, and you agree to abide by the license they give you. That’s a form of contract.
However, just because something is written into a contract does not make it legally enforcable, because United States law gurantees certain rights. And those rights guranteed by law will trump something that is written into a contract if they are in conflict.
“So while you may disagree with my opinion on what I think SCO and it’s leader may be you can not disagree with the fact that there is no evidence to date that Linux and it’s programmers and coders stole anything from SCO.”
Sure there is. THere is the 67 header files that SCO claims violates their copyright. Just because you haven’t seen those 67 header files does not mean they don’t exist as evidence.
> Linux is not based on Minix at all. In fact, Torvalds
> developed Linux because he didn’t like Minix.
> The design philosophies aren’t even the same. Minix is a
> microlithic kernel design. Linux uses a monolithic kernel.
True, but from a “looking at source code” perspective, and the compilation of first version of Linux, it was done on Minix – I suggested it to show that Linus did have looked at Minix source code and perhaps have worked with it (and decided not like it later), but NOT directly working on Linux from a commercial Unix system.
> That settlement only applied to BSD. It does not in any
> way, shape, or form protect Linux from being sued by
> whoever the current owner of UNIX is.
It _does_ propose the code in question, whether it is a public available material. Please remember SCO has suggested the version in violation is Linux Kernel 2.4.x and 2.5.x/2.6 (after BSD lawsuit is setlled), unless SCO has changed its stance to go back to earlier version of Kernel – or, as I have said, it now wants to take back publicly available material (POSIX standard) as its own IP – their argument may have a different standpoint and chances. IF using BSD code is in question, I bet Microsoft will be in trouble too – because anyone can question hypothetically, where Microsoft got the TCP/IP layer other than from BSD?
And it is the same reason why SCO does not want to go after SGI because SGI also suggested their contribution were already available in BSD and other Unix public domain.
“For more immaturity see comments in Linux kernel source code.”
What I mean by thay, by the way…
I guess I just don’t feel the need to place random, vulgar comments with foul language in my source code that does nothing to document the purpose of the function, variable, class, or whatever… But I don’t know… Maybe that is just me. Maybe I’m the only one that thinks comments in source code should serve an actual purpose.
“It _does_ propose the code in question, whether it is a public available material.”
But if it is BSD code (and Torvalds says it’s not. I also say its not because I have looked at both)… But if it were BSD code, than Linux violated the BSD license by not crediting the University of California in the source code.
“IF using BSD code is in question, I bet Microsoft will be in trouble too – because anyone can question hypothetically, where Microsoft got the TCP/IP layer other than from BSD? ”
Using BSD code is not in question. Linux could have used BSD code, provided that:
a: They credited UCB in the source code.
b: They did not try to enforce the GPL on the source code
that was, in fact, code taken from BSD.
“b: They did not try to enforce the GPL on the source code
that was, in fact, code taken from BSD.”
iirc BSD liscensed code can reliscensed under the GPL without violating the BSD license.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.sco.com
“iirc BSD liscensed code can reliscensed under the GPL without violating the BSD license.”
True. But what I meant is that they could not try to claim that it was their code.
In other words, if you took that same code and used it in your own application, they could not try to claim you violated the GPL.
> Using BSD code is not in question. Linux could have used BSD
> code, provided that:
> a: They credited UCB in the source code.
> b: They did not try to enforce the GPL on the source code
> that was, in fact, code taken from BSD.
I believe you can put BSD code into GPL – but that part of code is not _explicitly_ in GPL.
The problem is he was not using BSD code, but BSD (and other Unix public domain) code could show such libraries / materials is NOT trade secret by any public standard (that is what SCO has been confusing developers all along).
Now, the question is, his analysis has reported his development issue and history, you may still have a question of his credibility, but SCO has not done anything to show it owns the copyright of those code _exclusively_, and Novell has reportedly re-file the copyright of UNIX source in question. Even assuming BSD code was borrwed in question, but it is NOT what SCO’s lawsuit is about, the company is not fighting for BSD license/copyright notice enforcement – but it still has no exclusive rights for those code in question.
Hi
While I dont know whether SCO has any real evidence on these claims linus has always been straightforward.
Here is a sample
”
– I wrote them [ctype.h] (and looking at the original ones, I’m a bit ashamed: the “toupper()” and “tolower()” macros are so horribly ugly that I wouldn’t admit to writing them if it wasn’t because somebody else claimed to have done so
… So there is definitely a lot of proof that my ctype.h is original work.”
It is true that he started writing this as a hobby but he wouldnt be so naive as to deny the claims if he had copied anything over from Unix
Linus says very clearly that he wrote at least some of that code and it was not copied.
So, either Sco has no case, or Linus is lying.
Sure there is. THere is the 67 header files that SCO claims violates their copyright. Just because you haven’t seen those 67 header files does not mean they don’t exist as evidence.
Actually, we have seen these 65 files (not 67). SCO may claim that these violate their copyrights, but if you look at the files you’ll see that there’s nothing to help SCO in there. For starters, SCO would have to prove that there was infringement, which may be impossible with regards to header files that follow POSIX guidelines. The errno.h refers to common error message numbers in UNIX. You can’t accuse someone of copyright infringement when they adhere to standards…
As to whether Torvalds is just covering his @ss…well, since all of the Linux files are public, that would be really stupid for him to lie about something that can be clearly examined by all. You say we don’t know if he did copy the code or not…well, I know he’s not stupid, so I don’t believe he did. I do believe that SCO still doesn’t have a case, though.
SCO won’t get very far with this new scheme. It’s kind of pathetic, really.
Meanwhile: two more weeks before SCO is forced to hand in its evidence to IBM…
Did he have access to the UNIX source code when he wrote Linux? Probably. Had he seen the UNIX source before he wrote Linux? I can just about gurantee it? Did he rip code from the UNIX source code when he wrote Linux? Who knows? Given that he was doing it as a hobby, and didn’t anticipate Linux becoming what it is today, it’s very possible he thought that ripping a little bit of code from UNIX and using it for hobby purposes wouldn’t hurt anything.
I think you are getting a little ahead of yourself. It was common to have access to UNIX source code at some Universities at one time, this is true, but not at the time the supposed infringement took place. SCO’s claims are about 2.4 and later kernels. The BSD lawsuit had long been settled and I doubt any University would have had access to the source code at that time. Linus was well out of college (where he studied MINIX source code not UNIX source code) by that time also.
“For starters, SCO would have to prove that there was infringement, which may be impossible with regards to header files that follow POSIX guidelines.”
SCO doesn’t have to prove infringment. They have to provide reasonable evidence of infringment. The burden of proof is a lot lower in civil court than in criminal court.
“You say we don’t know if he did copy the code or not…well, I know he’s not stupid, so I don’t believe he did. I do believe that SCO still doesn’t have a case, though.”
I don’t believe he’s stupid either. But once again, that doesn’t mean that back in the day when Linux was a virtually unknown hobby project, he didn’t decide that it wouldn’t hurt anything to wrip code from SCO.
As far as denying it today, that’s not stupid either (even if he really did rip code from UNIX). Deny it. Let SCO make their case that he ripped code. Don’t make their case for them by admitting it.
“SCO’s claims are about 2.4 and later kernels.”
They are claiming that because it would look rather stupid of them to say that Linux has always violated their copyright. The standard response would be “Then why are you just now getting around to doing something about it?”
I think that’s exactly the point Linus is trying to make when he says that the code in question has been around since Linux 0.0.1, and that he wrote it way back then.
“For more immaturity see comments in Linux kernel source code.”
What I mean by thay, by the way…
I guess I just don’t feel the need to place random, vulgar comments with foul language in my source code that does nothing to document the purpose of the function, variable, class, or whatever… But I don’t know… Maybe that is just me. Maybe I’m the only one that thinks comments in source code should serve an actual purpose.
So I guess comments in Microsofts source code calling Netscape “weenies” make Windows a toy unfit for professional use. I guess the backdoor one of their employees coded to gain access to websites was a bit unprofessional also.
They are claiming that because it would look rather stupid of them to say that Linux has always violated their copyright. The standard response would be “Then why are you just now getting around to doing something about it?”
I think that’s exactly the point Linus is trying to make when he says that the code in question has been around since Linux 0.0.1, and that he wrote it way back then.
I realize this but how does that make my point any less valid?
SCO doesn’t have to prove infringment. They have to provide reasonable evidence of infringment.
Actually, the proof of infringement has to be convincing. In this case it isn’t.
Considering the files they’re talking about here are based on POSIX and C standards that are readily available, that kind of voids their case, doesn’t it?
But once again, that doesn’t mean that back in the day when Linux was a virtually unknown hobby project, he didn’t decide that it wouldn’t hurt anything to wrip code from SCO.
Except that the files he wrote back in the days were quite different from the files that SCO claims infringe on their copyright. You’d know that if you’d actually read Linus’ explanation. So your hypothesis is based on an erroneous interpretation of SCO’s allegations of copyright infringement.
Which, again, are completely trivial, concerning widely available standards that effectively belong to the public domain.
As far as denying it today, that’s not stupid either (even if he really did rip code from UNIX). Deny it. Let SCO make their case that he ripped code.
You’re making accusations here that SCO dares not make – they have not accused Linus of copyright infringement at all. You seem to have more confidence in this that SCO do themselves…
“You’re making accusations here that SCO dares not make – they have not accused Linus of copyright infringement at all. You seem to have more confidence in this that SCO do themselves…”
The accusation seems to be that those header files did rip code from UNIX. If that is the case, then however wrote those header files ripped code from UNIX.
You can’t claim violation of IP rights if two people independantly come to the same conclusion. So their claim has to be based on the charge that someone ripped from UNIX.
SCO isn’t directly going after Linus. But Linus himself seems to admit that he is the one that wrote the header files in question.
and many also think that Microsoft’s EULA is illegal as well since it violates many state and federal consumer laws.
“So I guess comments in Microsofts source code calling Netscape “weenies” make Windows a toy unfit for professional use.”
I think you might have the backwards… The story I remember is that Netscape had to clean up the source code quite a bit before they could release it to the public, because they had to remove all of the nasty comments about Microsoft from it.
But also, what you do in private and what you do in public are not the same thing. If you put stupid comments in code that only you are going to see, that’s one thing. But putting those same comments in code that you know you are going to place in the public view is quite another.
I think you might have the backwards… The story I remember is that Netscape had to clean up the source code quite a bit before they could release it to the public, because they had to remove all of the nasty comments about Microsoft from it.
No. You are definitely the one who has it backwards.
http://www.anu.edu.au/mail-archives/link/link0004/0321.html
But also, what you do in private and what you do in public are not the same thing
Sure. Coding in a backdoor where no one can see it is definitely better than doing it in the open. Or maybe not. Open source allows anyone to audit the code. Windows users will have to take their chances with unethical coders.
“The story I remember is that Netscape had to clean up the source code quite a bit before they could release it to the public, because they had to remove all of the nasty comments about Microsoft from it.”
No. I do not have it backwards. It was widely publicized that Netscape had to remove a lot of nasty comments about Microsoft before they could release the Mozilla source code.
And as far as this one…
“I guess the backdoor one of their employees coded to gain access to websites was a bit unprofessional also.”
I don’t believe this unless you document it. And even if it is true, I’d be willing to bet that said employee does not work for Microsoft anymore.
“Sure. Coding in a backdoor where no one can see it is definitely better than doing it in the open. Or maybe not.”
Once again, I don’t believe this unless you document it. And even if it is true, I’d be willing to bet that said employee does not work for Microsoft anymore.
Maybe we are all just falling into scox’s trap by letting scox distract us. Isn’t this a non-issue?
1) If Linus copied the code, then IBM is off the hook. Or, at least, it doesn’t prove anything about ibm violating a contract.
2) Why didn’t scox bring this revelation forward ten months ago?
3) Why did/does scox distribute code that scox knows to be illegal?
4) How does this scox grounds to sue end users? If anything, this would give grounds to sue Linux – but nobody else.
5) Why not specifically identify infringing code so it can be removed?
Scox isn’t stupid. Scox knows they are lying. Scox seem stupid because they say absurd things. But, actually those absurd statements serve a purpose: they distract the oss community from what scox is really up to.
Wag the dog.
For more immaturity see comments in Linux kernel source code.
If I understand you…
Zealots are immature.
Some developers are zealots.
Developers are immature.
There’s something wrong with this, don’t you think? I agree that some are completely stupid and believe they’re in an anti-MS/closed source software crusade but it doesn’t make it a unprofessional/toy OS. It only prove that some developers are immature and their contributions should be reviewed… At least the comments.
Anyway, I support your stance (except on that point). I believe the good faith of Linux programmers but maybe a spoiled apple did put UNIX code in it… or maybe Linus itself. I’m eager to see the conclusion.
“The point is, I don’t think you can say with any reasonable degree of certainty at this point, that Linux is not infringing on SCO’s copyright.” by Anonymous Coward
Well Anonymous, neither can you say that your OS is clean for mr Gates gets convicted in (or settles) multiple cases each year for infringing others copyrights
and BTW you take linux very seriously everytime you look at a webpage(well, at least most of em)
It’s up to SCO to prove what they say;
and we like to see some of that evidence,
but they do not show it,
and what they show/have shown is laughable at best, but hek 12 or 13 days or so until the deadline,
and then we’ll see their “evidence”.
the latest SCO open letter reads like an extorsion attempt by sco,
and I would truly like to see someone counter attack these illegitemite business practice.
It’s like a machine. You can patent a machine. But does that also imply a patent on each of its individual components? I don’t think so unless you actually also patent each individual component specifically.
Same with errno.h and others in the list at the end of http://lwn.net/Articles/64052/. They are components. And unless SCO have copyrighted them individually then they have no case. That is … in my mind. It shall be interesting. Especially if Linux should loose.
I have,however,never seen anywhere within windows or its documentation state “This product uses code derived from BSD”
here you go:
from winsock.h
/* WINSOCK.H–definitions to be used with the WINSOCK.DLL
* Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
*
* This header file corresponds to version 1.1 of the Windows Sockets specification.
*
* This file includes parts which are Copyright (c) 1982-1986 Regents
* of the University of California. All rights reserved. The
* Berkeley Software License Agreement specifies the terms and
* conditions for redistribution.
*
*/
there are a few other places you can find the regents stuff but this is the easiest one to get to
Yes because we all know that all windows users are all so mature, each and everyone of them including the ones that use spam non-sense in AOL chat rooms.
“It’s statements like these that make it very hard for me (and many others) to take Linux seriously as anything more than a toy developed by immature children and adults acting like children.”
It’s statements like these that make me think you’re not very smart. What does a few offhand comments from a non-developer have anything to do with the quality of an OS developed by someone else? Sorry, but this toy OS is giving MS, Apple, and Unix products a beating so if Linux is a toy OS, your favorite OS is not far behind.
“The point is… You guys aren’t doing Linux any favors by making immature and childish statements like this. You may say I’m stereotyping, but these coments are way too comon from Linux people anytime someone says something bad about Linux, or anytime someone claims that Linux infringed on their copyright.”
It’s not anytime. Notice that it’s usually SCO bashing. This is because they have dubious business practices. They’re asking people to pay them for code they CLAIM to own and haven’t PROVEN they’ve owned, yet. If they were honest, they should at least PROVE their case first and then ask for payments. And JUST TRUST US doesn’t count for anything as proof.
“You don’t seem to have any problems when someone sues Microsoft claiming that Microsoft infringed on copyright. Yet you already have SCO marked as a villian even before you have seen any evidence.”
Where did he say that? You’re MAKING STUFF UP. You dishonest person, you.
“Let’s not forget. Linus Torvalds was a CompSci student at a prominant university. Did he have access to the UNIX source code when he wrote Linux? Probably. Had he seen the UNIX source before he wrote Linux? I can just about gurantee it? Did he rip code from the UNIX source code when he wrote Linux? Who knows? Given that he was doing it as a hobby, and didn’t anticipate Linux becoming what it is today, it’s very possible he thought that ripping a little bit of code from UNIX and using it for hobby purposes wouldn’t hurt anything.”
Pure speculation on your part. So far, everything SCO has claimed has been stolen from them is TRIVIAL or OWNED by SOMEONE ELSE.
“The point is, I don’t think you can say with any reasonable degree of certainty at this point, that Linux is not infringing on SCO’s copyright.”
I can say with reasonable certainty that everything SCO has cited so far is not infringing and since that true, I am less inclined to believe that anything else they come up will be true.
“So unless you think Torvalds is a god that can’t do anything wrong, you might want to reserve judgement. Maybe Torvalds didn’t rip code. But then again, maybe he did. I will wait for the legal process to carry itself out before I decide.”
Honestly, what thief would steal code and then leave the evidence in the public view? Most thiefs I know steal in the dark. Like when MS stole the Stacker algorithm to put into Dos? I bet you’ll tell me you knew about that before the trial broke out. And I bet you can guarantee to me that 100% of all Windows code is not stolen. Heh. Dream on.
They have brought on the immaturity themselves (not that I am saying it is the correct response).
Every time they make a statement it’s a completely new claim, differing wildly from previous claims.
Going from memory here (feel free to correct me), the claims they have made so far are.
– It’s only a contract dispute with IBM, no IP problems.
– All modern operating systems are derivite works of UNIX
– It’s millions of lines of code effecting scalability in all 2.4 kernels.
– Its code that’s only in some vendors trees (eg redhat), the vanilla kernel is fine.
– To this new claim of it’s 10 standard header files.
It would actually be highly amusing, were it not people’s livelihoods they were attempting to destroy.
This behavior naturally leads to people easily dismissing their claims – if SCO don’t believe them enough to be consistent, why should anyone else believe them?
There is also the principal of mitigating damages. If there is code there, then it’s SCO’s responsibility to try to limit the exposure of it. That this has carried on for months with out a single cease and desist letter listing the specific parts they claim are theirs would lead a reasonable person to believe they don’t intend to seek damages for this code.
hi,
I haven’t had time to read all the other comments thoroughly, and maybe someone has already made a comment along the lines of this comment (btw, eugenia, how about implementing some kind of structure for the osnews comments — threads, subtopics or something like that — it’s getting difficult to read 60+ comments carefully while remembering the connections between them).
My point is: a header defines an interface, not an implementation. Copying an interface is very different from copying an implementation. Anyone, remeber the look & feel court case (it was a long time ago, maybe 10 years?). The judge ruled in that case that one cannot own an interface specification (or something like that, i only remember the general idea, maybe I’m very wrong?
).
So, even if the headers come from the original UNIX sources (or look very similar to those), is it proof of copyright infringement? I mean, this is an interface specification, and a rather classical one. Even if you reinvent the wheel without looking at “prior art”, it’s bound to be round if it’s going to be of any use.
Then again, I’m just another immature Linux fanboy so feel free to ignore me.
This thread is trully classic. SCO alleges that Linux has made use of some 65 header files which they claim is part of their propietary UNIX IP. Linus responds pointing out his authorship of said headers by way of admitting the coding mistakes and fumbles that he personally made in righting them in 1991. These header files, in all of their incarnations, are publicly viewable and available. I personally have never ever seen or heard of anyone acknowledging personal mistakes for something that they did not do, let alone a great programmer fictiously making self-denigrating remarks regarding code that he/she didn’t write.
How absurd. As usual SCO can make such claims in public without having to show us “their” code, therefore it is utterly impossible to absolutely prove, in a legal sense, that Linux, and by extension/recrimination Linus, is innocent of the crimes charged, shy of the code being opened up for analysis in a courtroom filled with lawyers. In such a situation SCO can claim anything they want and there is no way, shy of going to court, to “legally” prove that they are lying.
Yet common sense has gone fishing, apparently. Such a farce. I imagine a father interrogating a young man about the pregnancy of the father’s daughter- “Boy -you slept with my little girl and got her pregnant, now you know that that has consequences.” The young man, who had never slept with the girl, having only seen her in one of his math classes, tells the father:”But it was an accident, the condom came off and I should have stopped”. Now programmers and young men do make mistakes but they usually don’t admit to making them if they didn’t do it in the first place. Or has speculative reasoning, cynical paranoia and libelous disengenousness become so rampant that no reflection at all occurs anymore ?
Anti-linux zealots should be allowed to express their sentiments. After all speech is *like* “free beer”. For their is no accountability, and one is fully protected under the “anonymity” of faceless impersonal “communication” via the web and forums like this. Whereas Linux developers, who believe in accountability, in a far more profound way than any propietary developers ever could, actually expose themselves, and thus can be held to account by those who view their open code.
@ John:
Who to trust -Linux or SCO
by John
“I really don’t know…”
Well John trusting Linux and trusting SCO are two very differnt things. Trusting SCO means trusting their management(and lawyers) and their financial motives. Trusting Linux means trusting hundreds of thousands of developers from around the globe who only share in common a love for coding Linux-but then again- this “trusting” is simply your willingness to examine the open code- if you are willing to do the work of looking it up then you do not need to “trust” them at all.
In the absense of parity, where propietary IP can claim IP violations without making their supposedly “infringed upon” code publically available, their claims are tantamount to “the boy who cried wolf”. As has been said often before “put up or shut up”- no claims should be admissable in the court of common sense where no verification is possible.
“Many legal experts think GPL is invalid…”
Many people, “experts” included, have stated that blacks are inferior to whites, that homosexuals are “unnatural” and that women should be at home, barefoot and pregnant…So what *is* your point.
“I agree. That’s why I use Windows XP, designed by professionals, for professionals.”[i]
Profound John, really profound. I hope your anti-Linux zealotism helps you sleep at night.
@Anonymous (IP: —.mn.client2.attbi.com)
You obviously have already engaged in a moderate amount of reflection. But your “fence-sitting” is disengous to say the least. This issues at stake here is the viability of open source development. There are no “disinterested parties” or “bystanders” in this issue.
If you are a software developer or have ever coded before you cannot remain indifferent regarding these issues.There is no “I will wait for the legal process to carry itself out before I decide.” IF you do not understand the issues at stake here, you may be forgiven-If you do, however, understand the issues, you *must* know that this mode of “speculation”, in which yoi are actively engaging in is the the very same “speculation” which the boys at SCO and their lawyers are betting their future on.
You are engaging in the same thing that they are, albeit for different reasons. Whereas their motives(reasons) are abundantly clear to any but the most dim lighted persons, your reasoning remains unclear, probably due to a lack of reasoning-for your “speculation” is pure rhetoric, in the bad sense, ie. arguing for the sake of arguing. Your comments about Linux being a Toy OS is nothing more than evidence of you having been bought and sold by the the dimwits who go on and on about “professionalism”-as if their capitalistic self-prostitution, ie. their willingness to be bought and paid for, was an ethical stance of outstanding moral value.
“Professionals” do it for money-ie. they get paid to do it. Is it your intent to say that that which is not done for money is valueless by virtue of the fact that one is not selling themselves and cannot be bought ? Gee you apparently have really “warped” values….
And your comments about the comments in the Linux source code is even more immature than those comments are: As if you could therewitrh justify your anti-linux posturing on the basis of comments in code. The comments in the Linux code read like a dialogue between often frustrated developers, over years, struggling with the assanine situation of lacking design documentation and specifications and having to hack and hack again to make some “black box” function in a sensible way. Their frustration is palpable-and this idiotic situation still persists. If the coders had access to the needed information 95% of all swearing would probably vanish from the source, but who [i]really gives a f+*k about such utterly superificial stuff.
sorry about the the html flags- I messed up- only the qutoes should be in italics and I only wanted one word to be in bold….<ducks>
The copyright, as required, is in the executables too:
This is XP Pro (with cygwin to make it halfway useful)
James > strings /c/WINDOWS/system32/ftp.exe | grep Regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
James >
<snip>
” Let’s not forget. Linus Torvalds was a CompSci student at a prominant university. Did he have access to the UNIX source code when he wrote Linux? Probably.”
I can personally guarantee that he had no such access, although I have never met him. I don’t think Helsinki had that sort of money – AT&T may have well been free and easy with Unix source code in the States, but overseas it would’ve been quite a different matter. He had a copy of Minix – I myself have a copy of the book “Operating Systems : Design and Implementation” by Andrew Tanenbaum – I have some idea of what Linus was trying to do.
” Had he seen the UNIX source before he wrote Linux? I can just about gurantee it?”
The point is, though, that even 4.3BSD code was licensed overall under an extremely onerous and expensive license, the AT&T one. My own alma mater, the University of Canterbury (NZ), had one such license, and I myself asked a friend who was in his final year, if it was possible to have a look at it. He never got back to me on that matter. Now that SCO/Caldera released everything from that era (up to 32V and up to 4.3BSD) under a BSD-like license, I can read it if I need or want to. Back then I couldn’t.
” Did he rip code from the UNIX source code when he wrote Linux? Who knows? Given that he was doing it as a hobby, and didn’t anticipate Linux becoming what it is today, it’s very possible he thought that ripping a little bit of code from UNIX and using it for hobby purposes wouldn’t hurt anything.”
I doubt it.
” The point is, I don’t think you can say with any reasonable degree of certainty at this point, that Linux is not infringing on SCO’s copyright. ”
I can say, with absolute certainty, that Linux is doing no such thing. This is something I posted today on linux-kernel newsgroup, in response to Linux Torvalds’ question/statement:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
<snip>
>
> For example, SCO lists the files “include/linux/ctype.h” and
> “lib/ctype.h”, and some trivial digging shows that those files are
> actually there in the original 0.01 distribution of Linux (ie September of
> 1991). And I can state
>
> – I wrote them (and looking at the original ones, I’m a bit asha med:
> the “toupper()” and “tolower()” macros are so horribly ugly th at I
> wouldn’t admit to writing them if it wasn’t because somebody e lse
> claimed to have done so 😉
>
> – writing them is no more than five minutes of work (you can ver ify that
> with any C programmer, so you don’t have to take my word for i t)
>
> – the details in them aren’t even the same as in the BSD/UNIX fi les (the
> approach is the same, but if you look at actual implementation details
> you will notice that it’s not just that my original “tolower/t oupper”
> were embarrassingly ugly, a number of other details differ too ).
>
> In short: for the files where I personally checked the history, I can
> definitely say that those files are trivially written by me personally,
> with no copying from any UNIX code ever.
>
> So it’s definitely not a question of “all derivative branches”. It’s a
> question of the fact that I can show (and SCO should have been able to
> see) that the list they show clearly shows original work, not “copied”.
>
>
> Analysis of “lib/ctype.c” and “include/linux/ctype.h”.
>
>
> First, some background: the “ctype” name comes “character type”, and the
> whole point of “ctype.h” and “ctype.c” is to test what kind of character
> we’re dealing with. In other words, those files implement tests for doing
> things like asking “is this character a digit” or “is this character an
> uppercase letter” etc. So you can write thing like
>
<snip>
> – The original Linux ctype.h/ctype.c file has obvious deficienci es, which
> pretty much point to somebody new to C making mistakes (me) ra ther than
> any old and respected source. For example, the “toupper()/tolo wer()”
> macros are just totally broken, and nobody would write the “is ascii()”
> and “toascii()” the way they were written in that original Lin ux. And
> you can see that they got fixed later on in Linux development, even
> though you can also see that the files otherwise didn’t change .
>
> For example: remember how C macros must only use their argumen t once
> (never mind why – you really don’t care, so just take it on fa ith, for
> now). So let’s say that you wanted to change an upper case cha racter
> into a lower case one, which is what “tolower()” does. Normal use is
> just a fairly obvious
>
> newchar = tolower(oldchar);
>
> and the original Linux code does
>
> extern char _ctmp;
> #define tolower(c) (_ctmp=c,isupper(_ctmp)?_ctmp+(‘a’+’A’):_ctmp)
>
> which is not very pretty, but notice how we have a “temporary
> character” _ctmp (remember that internal header names should s tart with
> an underscore and an upper case character – this is already sl ightly
> broken in itself). That’s there so that we can use the argumen t “c”
> only once – to assign it to the new temporary – and then later on we
> use that temporary several times.
>
> Now, the reason this is broken is
>
> – it’s not thread-safe (if two different threads try to do th is at
> once, they will stomp on each others temporary variable)
>
> – the argument (c) might be a complex expression, and as such it
> should really be parenthesized. The above gets several vali d
> (but unusual) expressions wrong.
>
> Basically, the above is exactly the kinds of mistakes a young programmer
> would make. It’s classic.
>
> And I bet it’s not what the UNIX code looked like, even in 1991.
That can be easily verified, courtesy of TUHS and PUPS, The Unix Heritage
Soc., and the PDP Unix Preservation Soc.:
Unix 32V /usr/include/ctype.h
#define toupper(c) ((c)-‘a’+’A’)
#define tolower(c) ((c)-‘A’+’a’)
3BSD /usr/include/ctype.h
#define toupper(c) ((c)-‘a’+’A’)
#define tolower(c) ((c)-‘A’+’a’)
4.2BSD /usr/include/ctype.h
#define toupper(c) ((c)-‘a’+’A’)
#define tolower(c) ((c)-‘A’+’a’)
4.3BSD-Rev2-Foreign /include/ctype.h
#define toupper(c) ((c)-‘a’+’A’)
#define tolower(c) ((c)-‘A’+’a’)
I think that should answer the question. I don’t have any (genetic) Unix
later than 32V, so I can’t say anything about SysVRx. The later *BSD –
FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, plus DragonflyBSD, etc – are radically
different.
FreeBSD 2.0 /include/ctype.h
/* _ANSI_LIBRARY is defined by lib/libc/gen/isctype.c. */
#if !defined(_ANSI_LIBRARY)
static __inline _BSD_RUNE_T_
toupper(_BSD_RUNE_T_ c)
{
if (c < 0)
c = (unsigned char) c;
return((c & _CRMASK) ?
___toupper(c) : _CurrentRuneLocale->mapupper[c]);
}
static __inline _BSD_RUNE_T_
tolower(_BSD_RUNE_T_ c)
{
if (c < 0)
c = (unsigned char) c;
return((c & _CRMASK) ?
___tolower(c) : _CurrentRuneLocale->maplower[c]);
}
#endif /* !_ANSI_LIBRARY */
No further comments necessary.
Wesley Parish
” So unless you think Torvalds is a god that can’t do anything wrong, you might want to reserve judgement. Maybe Torvalds didn’t rip code. But then again, maybe he did. I will wait for the legal process to carry itself out before I decide.”
Why wait for them? And please, find some facts before you start getting accused of flame-baiting amd trolling.
this topic is getting more and more boring each day!
http://sco90days.com/
just let them sink
“This is the same problem that LAME gets into. LAME is illegal. If you don’t pay for the MP3 licence, you are violating that copyright and if you do pay for the MP3 licence, you are violating the LAME licence.”
Exactly the reason why LAME is not in Debian however where did you read this in the LAME license? It’s GPL. The MP3 patent doesn’t count everywhere anyway (:
” “So while you may disagree with my opinion on what I think SCO and it’s leader may be you can not disagree with the fact that there is no evidence to date that Linux and it’s programmers and coders stole anything from SCO.”
Sure there is. THere is the 67 header files that SCO claims violates their copyright. Just because you haven’t seen those 67 header files does not mean they don’t exist as evidence.”
Ah, yes. The “I am the Queen of France” claim. Together with the “Humpty-Dumpty Defense” – “I can make words mean whatever I choose to make them mean.”
Have you bothered to read any of the 67 header files? Do you have any idea of their relationship to the POSIX standards, or for that matter, the System V Interface Definition?
No? Then why on earth make a boast of it?
“I have,however,never seen anywhere within windows or its documentation state “This product uses code derived from BSD” or any other of the lines you must include according to the BSD licence.”
Try to use strings:
PWD == windows/system32
$ strings winsock.dll | grep BSD
BSD Socket API for Windows
$ strings wsock32.dll | grep BSD
[nothing]
Are only putting in an appearance in this thread because you’d like to see Linux fail or because you had a bad experience with a Linux “zealot”. Get over it. Every OS has its zealots, and every bulletin board its share of difficult people. This case is not about righting a wrong that’s been done. If that were the case, SCO could have brought their problem to the Kernel Development Team and if there was offending code, it would have been removed. This is merely an attempt to squeeze money out of companies with deep pockets using the convoluted history of Unix and are own somewhat inept legal system.
“I can personally guarantee that he had no such access, although I have never met him. I don’t think Helsinki had that sort of money – AT&T may have well been free and easy with Unix source code in the States, but overseas it would’ve been quite a different matter.”
“AT&T did not charge universities for access to the UNIX source code.”
“It’s statements like these that make me think you’re not very smart.”
Ah yes… Lets make it personal now by insulting my intelligence.
That’s real mature…
The accusation seems to be that those header files did rip code from UNIX. If that is the case, then however wrote those header files ripped code from UNIX.
That’s the thing, though. Did you have a look at the files? Then did you have a look at the POSIX specifications for these files? Using the specifications, it’s almost certain that someone starting from scratch would come up with these files pretty much exactly as they are. So unless there’s proof of verbatim copying (i.e. copied comments, notices of copyright, etc.), it will be impossible for SCO to prove that there’s infringement rather than a very likely (but not infringing) verisimilitude.
Please look at the files, then the POSIX and C specs for these files. Understand what we’re talking about here, and you’ll see SCO’s case is even weaker than it was before.
I agree. That’s why I use Windows XP, designed by professionals, for professionals.
Oh, and rebooted by professionals! I almost forgot that part. WHEW!
You’re making some very erroneous arguments:
1) You think that these header files are any evidence. They’re not. Aside from the ctype stuff, all of these files are just big lists of #define’s mapping error or IOCTL names to integers. They’re specified in the POSIX and various other UNIX standards. Even the comments in the code are derived from the standard. I’ll bet you that SysV and Linux also look the same in several other places. The ELF and COFF standards, for example, give complete C structures. So you’ll have structures in both code that are identical, down to the member names and the comments. Header files in general are just crappy evidence — since they usually contain no functional code, and are just interfaces, many of which are standardized formally or by practice in the UNIX world.
2) You think that this case is about Linus copying UNIX code when he made the OS. It’s not! This is about IBM employees putting UNIX code into Linux after 2.4. You can’t sue someone and go on a fishing trip for evidence after-the-fact. The case is built against IBM (not Linus), and unless those claims hold true, SCO has nothing. Maybe they can file a seperate suit against Linus afterwards, but that’s assuming they’ve got enough money left to pay the lawyers.
3) You think that a display of unprofessional behavior (the colorful comments) indicates a willingness to steal other peoples’ code. Linus was a computer science student. They are taught to be aware of copyright issues. Nothing in Linus’s behavior indicates that he would have ignored those warnings. Indeed, he was intensely aware of these issues, because he started Linux in part because the MINIX code was under and encumbered license.
4) You think the GPL is under question. I have yet to see an impartial expert come forward and claim that the GPL is fundementally flawed. You mention dynamic linking, but realize this: at the level of the computer, is no different than compiling files together directly, it just happens at a different time. Also, without protection against dynamic linking, it would be trivially easy to steal GPL code. The real-world equivilent of dynamically-linking GPL code would by copying chapters out of a text book and sticking them in the appendix of my own book, continually making references to those chapters throughout my own work. I’m sure the publisher of the original work would jump on my case if I did that! Or better yet, go take Microsoft Shared Source code and try dynamically linking that, and see if they sue you for everything you own! Besides, dynamic linking is irrelevent here. We’re talking about the kernel, and in the kernel there is no dynamic linking. This is a straightforward example of copying code. Unless you’re claiming that the GPL is fundementally flawed (which even you admit it is not), the corner cases of the license are not in question.
The reason that the community is reacting so harshly to the SCO case is not because they believe that IBM is infallible, though some in the community might. They are reacting so harshly because the vast majority of the community is composed of technical people. Technical people hate bullshit and they hate corporate games. They like concrete facts and straightforward arguments. So far, SCO has given us none of these things! They continue to posture and dodge the issue. They fight the case in the media, rather than in the courtroom. They claim to be selling Linux licenses, but if you call them, you can’t buy one! Their vice presidents are quickly cashing out their stock at inflated prices. Lastly they have yet to provide a shred of evidence! Their first code “sample” was not only obfuscated, but turned out to be code from a book published decades ago! That SCO itself open-sourced already! This latest example is more of the same — all flash intented to impress laypersons, and no substance. When SCO posts a “.c” file with some real meat on it, then we can consider taking them seriously. Until then there is no reason to believe that SCO is any different than Enron or Tyco!
Even the comments cannot be dependend on. Someone on /. noted that the comments in errno.h are largely the same in FreeBSD too! That’s because the POSIX standard gives short descriptions of each error number, which implementers just copied into the comments. So you see minor differences like “args” vs. “arguments,” but they are mostly the same as the wording in the standard.
A very thorough response (to Anonymous). Kudos.
As for the comments issue, you’re totally right. What I meant is that for such common implementations, they would have to show evidence of verbatim copying that went beyond the probably of natural verisimilitude, given the available POSIX specs. So, yeah, the comments could even look very similar depending on what they are, and still that wouldn’t prove any infringement.
As I’ve said before, if this is all SCO’s got (that and the *BSD code they’ve shown before) then this really is nothing more than a Pump and Dump scam.
>It’s statements like these that make it very hard for me (and
>many others) to take Linux seriously as anything more than a
>toy developed by immature children and adults acting like
>children.
It’s statements like these that make it very hard for me (and many others) to take your position seriously. You’re judging a community, and an operating system, based on comments posted on a fringe web forum? Boy, somebody better tell Microsoft and Apple that all those kids in the Windows and Mac newsgroups are seriously harming their corportate reputations.
In America you are innocent until proven guilty. So far SCO has produced jack sqwat in terms of evidence.
Uhhh.. yeah, in criminal cases. In civil suits, there is no innocene or guilt, only liability, which is determined based on a perponderance of evidence, rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases. Don’t confuse criminal and civil law, they are very different.
Folks, let’s take it down to a level that’s very everyday and simple: the phone book.
Under U.S. copyright law, you can copyright a phone book, even though it’s just a collection of facts, e.g., that Henry Adams of 212 Main St. can be reached at 999-9999. So how come there’s more than one phone book available in many communities (Yellow Pages, Yellow Book, Donnelley Directory…)? Well, whether you can copyright a collection of facts depends on the effort you put into it. If you run the Yellow Pages through a copy machine, too bad – that’s still mainly the product of someone else’s effort, and violates the phone company’s copyright. But if you use original source material and assemble those materials into a phone directory by your own efforts, then even though it contains much the same material, your directory will not violate the phone company’s copyright in the Yellow Pages.
The header files can’t contain information that varies from the standard, any more than a working phone directory can list incorrect phone numbers. The question then is whether Linus simply copied the information in these files from Unix sources or whether he used original sources and his own effort.
We’re not going to decide that question ultimately here (or rather, we can, but no one will pay attention:), but some things stand out to me:
1. First, the whole enterprise of Linux was openly and publicly presented as someone writing his own OS. What sort of blockhead bothers to write his own OS if he has perfectly satisfactory (at the time, better) choices easily available to him? If Linus simply wanted to rip off Unix, it seems to me it would have been *much* easier to do it completely and in private rather than to try to snitch bits of header files here and there while under public scrutiny.
2. Second, there are the mistakes that Linus has pointed out – whole functions that didn’t exist in Unix because they were umm, well, *dumb*. (Hey, Linus says so himself.) It’s at points like these, where it’s obvious Linus didn’t know quite what he was doing, that ISTM someone who had Unix sources available and no compunction about the matter would simply have copied from them. The fact that the mistakes remain are an indication to me that such copying didn’t happen.
3. Third, the very comments some have pointed to as “immature” are to me an indication copying hasn’t taken place: I very much doubt there is Unix source code that contains the comment that “f***ing Posix” charges more than Linus can afford to pay to obtain their standards.
4. Fourth, this code has been sitting around available to the public, including academics and professional software engineers with access to Unix source, for many years. Either Linux isn’t a ripoff of Unix or SCO is a lot smarter than everyone else who’s ever seen Linux. You decide which of these is more likely.
Jud
“For more immaturity see comments in Linux kernel source code.”
If that is the case check the comments in the UNIX and BSD code as well. They are on the same level.
“3) You think that a display of unprofessional behavior (the colorful comments) indicates a willingness to steal other peoples’ code.”
I didn’t say that. All I said is that it is immature and unprofessional. It was in reponse to someone complaining that I was judging Linux based on the comments of immature Linux fanatics. I simply pointed out that there is ample evidence of immaturity and unprofessional behavior in the source code as well.
“If that is the case check the comments in the UNIX and BSD code as well. They are on the same level.”
I’ve looked through the FreeBSD source coee and I have not found such comments. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, because I haven’t looked at all the source code. But I have never found any in the code I have looked at.
“So unless there’s proof of verbatim copying (i.e. copied comments, notices of copyright, etc.), it will be impossible for SCO to prove that there’s infringement rather than a very likely (but not infringing) verisimilitude.”
In that case, Linux shouldn’t have anything to worry about right? My point is you have not seen SCO’s entire case. No one has. ANd we won’t until it goes through the court systems. I will reserve judgement until that happens.
“ANd we won’t until it goes through the court systems. I will reserve judgement until that happens.”
All that arguing, and that was your whole point all along, anonymous? That we know nothing and will know nothing until it’s settled in court?
So if someone fasely calls you a child rapist on television and in printed and online publications you should not have the right to defend yourself because you have nothing to worry about right ?
“Ah yes… Lets make it personal now by insulting my intelligence.
That’s real mature…”
And how is that immature? Are you childish for telling a fat woman that she is fat? Are you childish for saying a red car is red? It’s the truth.
In that case, Linux shouldn’t have anything to worry about right?
Exactly.
My point is you have not seen SCO’s entire case. No one has.
No, but I’ve read the letters they’ve sent to Linux users, and I’ve checked the file they indicate (this is the subject at hand, remember – not the IBM/SCO case). And those letters do not indicate infringement. I’m basing my opinion on what has been sent and the publicly available files, and within the context of this discussion that’s all we need to consider.
Please don’t confuse the latest letters from SCO with the SCO/IBM lawsuit. The two are only indirectly connected. The letters alleges that copyright infringement has taken place, and identifies where the copying took place. The evidence, if you will, is there to see. And it doesn’t prove SCO’s point in this particular matter – in fact, it is easily disproven. So, yes, in this matter (not the SCO/IBM lawsuit) one can easily demonstrate that SCO is in the wrong.
ANd we won’t until it goes through the court systems.
Many people have given you all the proof you need to come to this conclusion. You do realize that, as of now, this particular issue isn’t going to court, right? All that SCO has done is send out letters. So until SCO actually sues someone for copyright infringement, your entire argument is hypothetical.
I will reserve judgement until that happens.
Then you should wait until SCO actually sues someone from infringement before insinuating that Linus may have copied SCO’s material. That is, if Linus doesn’t sue SCO for libel and/or slander first.
Many legal experts think GPL is invalid…
Perhaps we wouldn’t be in this situation we’re in today with corporations like SCO, Enron and Microsoft behaving the way they do if legal experts didn’t go around thinking so much. I know, we should make a law against it.
Could you imagine the difference in the stability of our captialist society if our system of laws were based on math and logic instead of language? Or if people actually cared about people instead of money.. I think its interesting how corporations like SCO always play the victim. They actually think they are entitled to the fortune and fame that Linux has generated around it. It generated this fortune and fame by being generous, by giving away all its secrets. What has SCO given anyone? What has Microsoft given anyone? What has the government given anyone?
Generocity comes from people who like to give without expecting anything in return. The only thing us Linux geeks expect is that you be as generous as we have been and spread the wealth and IP and knowledge to all the people who want it. We ask nothing in return. Yet become the prime target of corporations like SCO. Why is this?
This is captialism at work here, folks, but why? What makes this system behave the way it does? Is this logical? No, but it is real and its legal by our own system of law.
Anyone has the right to act as childish as SCO’s lawyers and executives. And anyone will get away with it in our society. Except the few that get slapped on the wrist for taking all that money away from share holders and all those employees who lost their jobs, homes, families. All for money. All because of money.
What won’t people do for money? I’ve seen them eat leaches and bugs and performance any number of insane stunts for that dollar we seem to value so much. But is it worth it?
Do you get a kick out of those reality shows, watching those stupid human animals jump through flaming hoops for money? I don’t. I think it paints a rather pathetic picture of our species, of what we have become. We worship money, it has become our blood and our breath. But what is it? Its just an idea, a concept of value. Nothing, really.
All the IP in Linux and what can be done with it is worth far more than the cost of the CD we burn it on, or the $5 we sell it for, or the electricity and ISP charges to download it. The value of IP is in what we do with it, how we use it, how it makes us feel, etc, etc, etc. Its worthless when its boxed up on a shelf waiting for some rich fellow to pay for it.
End rant
“And how is that immature? Are you childish for telling a fat woman that she is fat? Are you childish for saying a red car is red? It’s the truth.”
Oh way to go… You topped it off by making yourself sound even more immature.
Wiseman say one not get out of hole by digging deeper. Suggest you stop digging.
“So if someone fasely calls you a child rapist on television and in printed and online publications you should not have the right to defend yourself because you have nothing to worry about right ? ”
Um… That’s what the legal process is for? As in, Linux will get the right to defend itself in court?
Um… That’s what the legal process is for? As in, Linux will get the right to defend itself in court?[/i]
Seeing as SCO has taken this battle into the court of public opinion, Linus (and all linux users) has every right to do the same.
Adam
“Seeing as SCO has taken this battle into the court of public opinion, Linus (and all linux users) has every right to do the same.”
I’m not saying they don’t. All I’m saying is that I reserve judgement on the issue, as in I haven’t decided whether I believe Linus or SCO at this point.
“Seeing as SCO has taken this battle into the court of public opinion, Linus (and all linux users) has every right to do the same.”
My other point is that sure, all Linux users have every right to take it into the court of public opinion. But some Linux users need to learn that they don’t gain any points in the court of public opinion by making immature and childish statements, and by calling names, which has been all to common in this forum.
Some of the comments were so bad and inflamatory, that they were downright deleted rather than simply moderated down.
Those kinds of comments certainly don’t win any points in the court of public opinion.