[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy/sco sco-without-fear.html
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy/sco sco-without-fear.html |
|
Date: |
Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:59:13 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 08/07/30 10:59:13
Modified files:
philosophy/sco : sco-without-fear.html
Log message:
Use HTML entities for quotes.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/sco/sco-without-fear.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.14&r2=1.15
Patches:
Index: sco-without-fear.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/sco/sco-without-fear.html,v
retrieving revision 1.14
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -u -b -r1.14 -r1.15
--- sco-without-fear.html 1 Jul 2008 19:13:27 -0000 1.14
+++ sco-without-fear.html 30 Jul 2008 10:58:47 -0000 1.15
@@ -23,61 +23,67 @@
<p>
SCO continues to claim in public statements about its lawsuit against
IBM that it can show infringement of its copyrights in Unix Sys V
-source code by the free software operating system kernel called
-Linux. But on the one occasion when SCO has publicly shown what it
-claimed were examples of code from Linux taken from Unix Sys V, its
+source code by the free software operating system kernel called Linux.
+But on the one occasion when SCO has publicly shown what it claimed
+were examples of code from Linux taken from Unix Sys V, its
demonstration backfired, showing instead SCO's cavalier attitude
toward copyright law and its even greater sloppiness at factual
research.
</p>
+
<p>
On August 18, 2003, SCO's CEO, Darl McBride, offered a slide
presentation of supposed examples of infringing literal copying from
Sys V to Linux at a public speech in Las Vegas. Within hours the free
software and open source communities had analyzed SCO's supposed best
evidence, and the results were not encouraging for those investors and
-others who hope SCO knows what it is talking about.<a name="tex2html2"
-href="#foot17"><strong>[1]</strong></a></p>
+others who hope SCO knows what it is talking
+about.<a href="#foot17">[1]</a></p>
+
+<p>
+In Las Vegas Mr. McBride offered two examples of code from the
+Linux program that were supposedly copied from Sys V. The first
+implements the “Berkeley Packet Filter” (BPF) firewall.
+Indeed, the Linux kernel program contains a BPF implementation, but it
+is the original work of Linux developer Jay Schulist. Nor did SCO
+ever hold an ownership interest in the original BPF implementation,
+which as the very name shows was originally part of BSD Unix, and
+which was copied, perfectly legally, into SCO's Sys V Unix from BSD.
+Because the BPF implementations in Sys V and Linux have a common
+intellectual ancestor and perform the same function, SCO's
+“pattern-matching” search of the two code bases turned up
+an apparent example of copying. But SCO didn't do enough research to
+realize that the work they were claiming was infringed wasn't their
+own (probably because they had “carelessly” removed the
+original copyright notice).
+</p>
+
<p>
-In Las Vegas Mr. McBride offered two examples of code from the Linux
-program that were supposedly copied from Sys V. The first implements
-the "Berkeley Packet Filter" (BPF) firewall. Indeed, the Linux
-kernel program contains a BPF implementation, but it is the original
-work of Linux developer Jay Schulist. Nor did SCO ever hold an
-ownership interest in the original BPF implementation, which as the
-very name shows was originally part of BSD Unix, and which was copied,
-perfectly legally, into SCO's Sys V Unix from BSD. Because the BPF
-implementations in Sys V and Linux have a common intellectual ancestor
-and perform the same function, SCO's "pattern-matching" search of
-the two code bases turned up an apparent example of copying. But SCO
-didn't do enough research to realize that the work they were claiming
-was infringed wasn't their own (probably because they had
-"carelessly" removed the original copyright notice).
-</p>
-<p>
-Mr. McBride's second example was only slightly less unconvincing. Mr
-McBride showed several dozen lines of memory allocation code from
-"Linux," which was identical to code from Sys V. Once again,
-however, it turned out that SCO had relied on "pattern-matching" in
-the source code without ascertaining the actual history and copyright
-status of the work as to which it claimed ownership and infringement.
-The C code shown in the slides was first incorporated in Unix Version
-3, and was written in 1973; it descends from an earlier version
-published by Donald Knuth in his classic <cite>The Art of Computer
-Programming</cite> in 1968. AT&T claimed this code, among other portions
-of its Unix OS, as infringed by the University of California in the
-BSD litigation, and was denied a preliminary injunction on the ground
-that it could not show a likelihood of success on its copyright claim,
-because it had published the code without copyright notices and
-therefore, under pre-1976 US copyright law, had put the code in the
-public domain. In 2002, SCO's predecessor Caldera released this code
-again under a license that permitted free copying and redistribution.
-Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI) then used the code in the variant of the
-Linux program for "Trillium" 64-bit architecture computers it was
-planning to sell but never shipped. In incorporating the code, SGI
-violated the terms of Caldera's license by erroneously removing
+Mr. McBride's second example was only slightly less unconvincing.
+Mr McBride showed several dozen lines of memory allocation code from
+“Linux,” which was identical to code from Sys V. Once
+again, however, it turned out that SCO had relied on
+“pattern-matching” in the source code without ascertaining
+the actual history and copyright status of the work as to which it
+claimed ownership and infringement. The C code shown in the slides
+was first incorporated in Unix Version 3, and was written in 1973; it
+descends from an earlier version published by Donald Knuth in his
+classic <cite>The Art of Computer Programming</cite> in 1968.
+AT&T claimed this code, among other portions of its Unix OS, as
+infringed by the University of California in the BSD litigation, and
+was denied a preliminary injunction on the ground that it could not
+show a likelihood of success on its copyright claim, because it had
+published the code without copyright notices and therefore, under
+pre-1976 US copyright law, had put the code in the public domain. In
+2002, SCO's predecessor Caldera released this code again under a
+license that permitted free copying and redistribution. Silicon
+Graphics, Inc. (SGI) then used the code in the variant of the Linux
+program for “Trillium” 64-bit architecture computers it
+was planning to sell but never shipped. In incorporating the code,
+SGI violated the terms of Caldera's license by erroneously removing
Caldera's (incorrect) copyright notice.
</p>
+
<p>
Thus SCO's second example was of supposedly impermissible copying of
code that was in the public domain to begin with, and which SCO itself
@@ -85,24 +91,26 @@
copyright. SGI had complicated matters by improperly removing the
inaccurate copyright notice. So how many PCs and Intel-architecture
servers around the world contained this supposedly infringing code?
-Zero. <em>No version of the Linux program for Intel architectures
-had ever contained it.</em> No SGI hardware for which this code was
+Zero. <em>No version of the Linux program for Intel architectures had
+ever contained it.</em> No SGI hardware for which this code was
written ever shipped. HP, which sells 64-bit Itanium servers, has
removed the code from the IA-64 branch of the Linux code tree; it was
technically redundant anyway. But SCO's research went no farther than
-discovering a supposed instance of "copying," without asking whether
-SCO had any rights in what had been copied, and certainly without
-providing the audience to whom it was speaking any indication that the
-"Linux" it was talking about was a variant for rare computers from
-which the supposedly-offending code had already been removed.
+discovering a supposed instance of “copying,” without
+asking whether SCO had any rights in what had been copied, and
+certainly without providing the audience to whom it was speaking any
+indication that the “Linux” it was talking about was a
+variant for rare computers from which the supposedly-offending code
+had already been removed.
</p>
+
<p>
-What the Las Vegas "examples" actually demonstrated was that SCO's
-factual claims were irresponsibly inflated when they weren't being
-kept artfully "secret." With the facts running against them even
-when the facts were of their own choosing, it was unsurprising that
-after August SCO turned to the law. But the law was not on their side
-either.
+What the Las Vegas “examples” actually demonstrated was
+that SCO's factual claims were irresponsibly inflated when they
+weren't being kept artfully “secret.” With the facts
+running against them even when the facts were of their own choosing,
+it was unsurprising that after August SCO turned to the law. But the
+law was not on their side either.
</p>
<h3>Making Up the Law</h3>
@@ -121,6 +129,7 @@
its trade secret lawsuit against IBM, and cannot carry out its threats
against users of the Linux kernel.
</p>
+
<p>
But if the GPL is not a valid and effective copyright permission, by
what right is SCO distributing the copyrighted works of Linux's
@@ -139,6 +148,7 @@
permission's terms, it loses the counterclaim, and should be
answerable in damages not only to IBM but to all kernel contributors.
</p>
+
<p>
IBM's counterclaim painted SCO into a corner on the subject of the
GPL. Not only the facts but also the law are now fundamentally
@@ -155,6 +165,7 @@
take the benefits, but it has unethically sought to avoid its
responsibilities. The law does not permit SCO to have it both ways.
</p>
+
<p>
So now it has become time for SCO and its lawyers to pound the table.
SCO's response to IBM's counterclaim has been a round of absurd
@@ -175,13 +186,14 @@
What will we see next from SCO, an attack on the umpire?
</p>
-<h3>Footnotes</h3>
+<h4>Footnotes</h4>
-<p><a name="foot17" href="#tex2html2"><sup>1</sup> </a>The most
- complete review of the SCO Las Vegas presentation was written by Bruce
- Perens, and is available at
-<a
href="http://www.perens.com/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html";>http://www.perens.com/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html</a>.
-</p>
+<ol>
+<li id="foot17">The most complete review of the SCO Las Vegas
+presentation was written by Bruce Perens, and is available at
+<a href="http://www.perens.com/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html";>
+http://www.perens.com/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html</a>.</li>
+</ol>
<p>
<em>
@@ -190,7 +202,6 @@
</em>
</p>
-<hr />
<h4><a href="/philosophy/sco/sco.html">Other Texts to Read related
to SCO</a>.</h4>
@@ -217,7 +228,7 @@
</p>
<p>
-Copyright © Eben Moglen, 2003.
+Copyright © 2003 Eben Moglen
<br />
Verbatim copying of this article is permitted in any medium,
provided this notice is preserved.
@@ -226,7 +237,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2008/07/01 19:13:27 $
+$Date: 2008/07/30 10:58:47 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
@@ -264,4 +275,3 @@
</div>
</body>
</html>
-