Headline FeedsTechNewsWorld Talkback
|
|
See Full StoryResponding to doubts about its claim that its Unix source code was illegally incorporated into Linux by IBM, SCO put some of the actual code in question on display for Unix conference attendees this week. Lines of the code, which SCO displayed during a slide presentation on its suit against IBM, apparently have served both to bolster the company's complaints about copyright infringement and to cast doubt on the company's ownership claims.
Re: SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case
Posted by: bamya 2003-08-21 05:29:03 In reply to: Jay Lyman
It was a long time since I've read something so misguided and misinformed.
Do some research before you post a story, will you? If you did such a thing as a 10-minute research before posting this story it could come up much better (Hint -use google news service - type SCO in that little box - you'd be surprised at the results!)
SCO's so-called "evidence" originated from code from 1973 that was TWICE released under BSD license by the rightful copywrite holder since.
It does matter how old he code it, because according to ruling from 1993, AT&T holds no exclusive rights on any code in the BSD linux.
The "evidence" SCO published is just another proof their claims hold no merit. I hope you'll do a better job at creating a more balanced report next time.
Do some research before you post a story, will you? If you did such a thing as a 10-minute research before posting this story it could come up much better (Hint -use google news service - type SCO in that little box - you'd be surprised at the results!)
SCO's so-called "evidence" originated from code from 1973 that was TWICE released under BSD license by the rightful copywrite holder since.
It does matter how old he code it, because according to ruling from 1993, AT&T holds no exclusive rights on any code in the BSD linux.
The "evidence" SCO published is just another proof their claims hold no merit. I hope you'll do a better job at creating a more balanced report next time.
Re: SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case
Posted by: capn_buzzcut 2003-08-21 04:53:46 In reply to: Jay Lyman
Please see these articles before accepting the knee-jerk attitude that "if any code in Linux is the same as code in SCO, then there must be infringement".
-
Linus Torvalds' analysis of SCO presentation: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1227081,00.asp
-
And Bruce Perens: http://www.perens.com/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html
-
Bottom line is, as Linus says, "They are smoking crack".
-
Linus Torvalds' analysis of SCO presentation: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1227081,00.asp
-
And Bruce Perens: http://www.perens.com/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html
-
Bottom line is, as Linus says, "They are smoking crack".
Re: SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case
Posted by: cmoss 2003-08-20 20:25:20 In reply to: Jay Lyman
SCO is purposely confusing the amount of code they claim to be a copyright infringement with what they claim to be unauthorized derivative works.
When they throw numbers around they combine the two and hope the media will assume they are referring to copyright infringement numbers.
The very shaky derivative works arguments worst case are a contract violation. There is no way possible they can claim copyright on "derivative" works. The legal dispute about derivative works is between SCO and the companies they have contracts with. That in no way strengthens their claim re: linux users.
Next time McBride or Sontag offer an interview on their FUD tour, ask them to clarify these numbers.
How many lines of code/files in Linux do you claim infringe Unix copyrights?
How many lines of code/files in Linux do you claim are derivative works?
Do you claim to own the copyright on the derivative works?
Isn't it true the the only legal standing you have with companies that sell Linux but have no contract with SCO is on the basis of the copyright infringement claims?
Isn't it true that there is no legal claim against the customers of linux sellers, if there is copyright infringement it is not the end-user committing it?
If you claim that you are suffering damages due to copyright infringement, aren't you obligated to make all parties aware of your claim to allow them to mitigate the damages?
CM
When they throw numbers around they combine the two and hope the media will assume they are referring to copyright infringement numbers.
The very shaky derivative works arguments worst case are a contract violation. There is no way possible they can claim copyright on "derivative" works. The legal dispute about derivative works is between SCO and the companies they have contracts with. That in no way strengthens their claim re: linux users.
Next time McBride or Sontag offer an interview on their FUD tour, ask them to clarify these numbers.
How many lines of code/files in Linux do you claim infringe Unix copyrights?
How many lines of code/files in Linux do you claim are derivative works?
Do you claim to own the copyright on the derivative works?
Isn't it true the the only legal standing you have with companies that sell Linux but have no contract with SCO is on the basis of the copyright infringement claims?
Isn't it true that there is no legal claim against the customers of linux sellers, if there is copyright infringement it is not the end-user committing it?
If you claim that you are suffering damages due to copyright infringement, aren't you obligated to make all parties aware of your claim to allow them to mitigate the damages?
CM
Re: SCO's Evidence Raises Questions About Case
Posted by: gnoordman2 2003-08-21 09:52:54 In reply to: cmoss
Let me say first that I sincerely hope SCO fails in its efforts. However ...
If there turns out to be infringing copyrighted code in Linux, and the customer _makes copies_ of Linux for herself, for her business or for others, then the customer also is liable for infringement claims.
If there turns out to be infringing copyrighted code in Linux, and the customer _makes copies_ of Linux for herself, for her business or for others, then the customer also is liable for infringement claims.
The first code snippet is an implementation of malloc() dating back to the '70s. It was released under the BSD license twice, including by Caldera itself (the company that is now called SCO) in 2002 as part of the "Ancient Unix" collection.
The second code snippet, referring to code that has been allegedly obfuscated to conceal its origin, is not even SCO's property. The code in SYSV was originally written at Berkeley as part of BSD. This code was later incorporated into AT&T UNIX (years before SCO bought SYSV), but the copyright attribution was removed and now SCO thinks it's theirs.
What's more, the code in Linux is *not* a deliberately obfuscated version of the original. It's a clean-room rewrite of the same algorithm. It only looks similar to the BSD version because it follows the same specification (the spec even gives field names).
Links:
http://www.perens.com/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1227081,00.asp
The second code snippet, referring to code that has been allegedly obfuscated to conceal its origin, is not even SCO's property. The code in SYSV was originally written at Berkeley as part of BSD. This code was later incorporated into AT&T UNIX (years before SCO bought SYSV), but the copyright attribution was removed and now SCO thinks it's theirs.
What's more, the code in Linux is *not* a deliberately obfuscated version of the original. It's a clean-room rewrite of the same algorithm. It only looks similar to the BSD version because it follows the same specification (the spec even gives field names).
Links:
http://www.perens.com/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1227081,00.asp
