Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on March 04, 2004 11:18 PM
Uh, you forgot that Linux source is publically available, and that SCOX has access to it's own source code. They can run their own compairsons.
This contraversy here isn't if SYS V code is in Linux or not. There are some common source here, but it's from non-copyrighted sources as Alan Cox and others have shown. Things like what error number is returned when there is an error. Others have stated that such snips of code are not only not copyrighted (due to publication with out a notice at a time when such notices were required), but that copyright law doesn't allow that type of code to be copyrighted at all. (The interoperable exception to copyright for computer code.)
The big flap is that the V32 Unix Sys V licence said, basically, that you can't contribute YOUR OWN MODIFIED SOURCE to others. That was back when AT&T owned Unix. Later, in the $echo, a newsletter run by AT&T, AT&T came back and said they didn't mean source you owned couldn't be contributed elsewhere, but that any of AT&T code your modified code containted couldn't be contributed.
As an example, suppose that the V32 AT&T code had: printf ('Hello world')
and you came along and added printf ('It is a nice day!')
You could release how you liked 'It is a nice day', but not 'Hello World', which is reasonable.
As originally written, the V32 license said you couldn't even release 'It is a nice day', which is stupid.
Of course, my examples here are grossly simplified.
Now, it gets a bit more complicated. Old SCO, Novell says, only bought the right to collect the fees for Unix System V, not the copyrights. The agreement seems to back that up, because Old SCO (and SCOX) are required to pay 95% of the collected fees back to Novell. The agreement also says that Novell has the right to ORDER SCOX to modify license agreements. Novell has done so, telling SCOX to honor the $echo explanation of source licensing. SCOX failed to do so. Then the next part of the agreement allows Novell to alter the license if SCO (and their sucessors in interest, in this case SCOX)failed to do so on their behalf. Which Novell has done.
Bottom line here is that there is just enough complication and things to make this dog hunt in court, but not for very long. The biggest complications are:
1. SCOX is not SCO. SCOX is "New SCO", owned by Canopy Group.
2. Some of old Unix code was placed in the public domain because it lacked copyright notices when published. At the time of publication, that was enough to lose the protection. This is all tied up in BSD Unix and AT&T Unix suit, which was settled out of court and the record sealed, so there are things here that the general public doesn't know.
3. SCOX thinks it bought the copyrights for Sys V from Novell. Novell says no, you didn't, you only got the right to collect the fees on our behalf. SCOX is suing Novell over this point too.
4. SCOX is going after people (AutoZone and Diamler Chrysler) for violation of their copyrights. This is like suing people that purchased a book at a book store for copyright violation because the printer didn't have permission to print that copyrighted work. I suspect that this won't hold up, because the purchaser of the work has no way of knowing if the copyright was honored by the publisher (RedHat) or not. SCOXs beef here is with RedHat, not the end user. (And RedHat is suing SCOX here too.)
Ultimatly, this will be decided in favor of Open Source unless a lot of judges want to throw out a lot of case law. Judges don't like to do that. It would appear that SCOX is suing left right and center to force some big player (like IBM) to buy them out and make this whole thing go away. In fact, SCOX approched IBM to ask that IBM buy their company out before this whole mess started. They asked for a billion dollers, if I recall correctly, and IBM said they weren't interested. Then the suits started... I think the end user suits may be an extension of the buyout plan. So far all the people SCOX has filed suit against could come up with the money to buy SCOX. See the agreement between SCOX and their attorneys, which says the attorneys will get a big chunk of change if SCOX gets bought out.
That could make some sense to people desperate to re-coop their losses in a company that is tanking, but it's also stupid too. If they have the money to buy you, they also have the money to burn you to a cinder in court if you don't have all your ducks in a row. So far, I've not heard anyone with an ounce of knowlege of the facts accuse SCOX of having their ducks in a row.
As always, I am not an attorney. These are my opinions. I do not have access to any information not published. I do not own stock in any of the companies.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:SPY x SPY
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 04, 2004 11:18 PMThis contraversy here isn't if SYS V code is in Linux or not. There are some common source here, but it's from non-copyrighted sources as Alan Cox and others have shown. Things like what error number is returned when there is an error. Others have stated that such snips of code are not only not copyrighted (due to publication with out a notice at a time when such notices were required), but that copyright law doesn't allow that type of code to be copyrighted at all. (The interoperable exception to copyright for computer code.)
The big flap is that the V32 Unix Sys V licence said, basically, that you can't contribute YOUR OWN MODIFIED SOURCE to others. That was back when AT&T owned Unix. Later, in the $echo, a newsletter run by AT&T, AT&T came back and said they didn't mean source you owned couldn't be contributed elsewhere, but that any of AT&T code your modified code containted couldn't be contributed.
As an example, suppose that the V32 AT&T code had:
printf ('Hello world')
and you came along and added
printf ('It is a nice day!')
You could release how you liked 'It is a nice day', but not 'Hello World', which is reasonable.
As originally written, the V32 license said you couldn't even release 'It is a nice day', which is stupid.
Of course, my examples here are grossly simplified.
Now, it gets a bit more complicated. Old SCO, Novell says, only bought the right to collect the fees for Unix System V, not the copyrights. The agreement seems to back that up, because Old SCO (and SCOX) are required to pay 95% of the collected fees back to Novell. The agreement also says that Novell has the right to ORDER SCOX to modify license agreements. Novell has done so, telling SCOX to honor the $echo explanation of source licensing. SCOX failed to do so. Then the next part of the agreement allows Novell to alter the license if SCO (and their sucessors in interest, in this case SCOX)failed to do so on their behalf. Which Novell has done.
Bottom line here is that there is just enough complication and things to make this dog hunt in court, but not for very long. The biggest complications are:
1. SCOX is not SCO. SCOX is "New SCO", owned by Canopy Group.
2. Some of old Unix code was placed in the public domain because it lacked copyright notices when published. At the time of publication, that was enough to lose the protection. This is all tied up in BSD Unix and AT&T Unix suit, which was settled out of court and the record sealed, so there are things here that the general public doesn't know.
3. SCOX thinks it bought the copyrights for Sys V from Novell. Novell says no, you didn't, you only got the right to collect the fees on our behalf. SCOX is suing Novell over this point too.
4. SCOX is going after people (AutoZone and Diamler Chrysler) for violation of their copyrights. This is like suing people that purchased a book at a book store for copyright violation because the printer didn't have permission to print that copyrighted work. I suspect that this won't hold up, because the purchaser of the work has no way of knowing if the copyright was honored by the publisher (RedHat) or not. SCOXs beef here is with RedHat, not the end user. (And RedHat is suing SCOX here too.)
Ultimatly, this will be decided in favor of Open Source unless a lot of judges want to throw out a lot of case law. Judges don't like to do that. It would appear that SCOX is suing left right and center to force some big player (like IBM) to buy them out and make this whole thing go away. In fact, SCOX approched IBM to ask that IBM buy their company out before this whole mess started. They asked for a billion dollers, if I recall correctly, and IBM said they weren't interested. Then the suits started... I think the end user suits may be an extension of the buyout plan. So far all the people SCOX has filed suit against could come up with the money to buy SCOX. See the agreement between SCOX and their attorneys, which says the attorneys will get a big chunk of change if SCOX gets bought out.
That could make some sense to people desperate to re-coop their losses in a company that is tanking, but it's also stupid too. If they have the money to buy you, they also have the money to burn you to a cinder in court if you don't have all your ducks in a row. So far, I've not heard anyone with an ounce of knowlege of the facts accuse SCOX of having their ducks in a row.
As always, I am not an attorney. These are my opinions. I do not have access to any information not published. I do not own stock in any of the companies.
#