More Damning SCO Evidence At Groklaw 404
An anonymous reader writes "There's a very interesting story up at Groklaw right now. PJ reports on new evidence that Chris Hellwig, a SCO employee, contributed code to SMP, XFS, and JFS and did so with the knowledge of his supervisor." Groklaw is thorough, and this is another good example of just quite how thorough.
conspiracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux-centric view (Score:5, Funny)
SCO centric view (Score:5, Funny)
.
.
.
Doh!
text of article (Score:5, Funny)
Re:text of article (Score:3, Funny)
Sometimes I worry if I've made an error when selecting a database.
MySQL seems to be widely deployed, but has only recently been getting relatively important features found in other RDBMS systems. Postgres seems to have the features that MySQL lacks, but if its so great, why isn't anyone using it. (Of course, don't ask a Postgres zealot that question. You'll never hear the end of their object of obsession is so underappreciated. They're worse than Python programmers.) Then of cours
what!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
After all this, I can't believe that this has come out, it doesn't surprise me in this day and age of sleazy business tactics, but this is really low. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I hope the FBI, DoJ and Stock Exachange Commission get involved now as it looks like pumpndump, Fraud, extortion, and slander to me.
No so surprising (Score:5, Informative)
Re:what!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Like the FBI and DOJ and SEC are doing now??
They're not doing ANYTHING about corporate crime, even AFTER they found conspiracy emails at Enron detailing how to bring plants on and off-line in such a fashion as to inflate prices (there never was a shortage).
The ONLY reason you're hearing about new scandals on Wall Street is due to the New Jersey state investigations.. the "feds" have tried to ignore this for as long as they can. (Hell, the feds ignored the Phoenix Memo, so why should this surprise anyone. Fucking traitors).
Re:what!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Mr Hellwig (Score:5, Informative)
He is in the top-ten list of commits to both the Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 tree according to the Bitkeeper statistics (which he hasn't faked himself but still should be taken with care).
After a number of smaller network administration and programming contracts he worked for Caldera's German development subsidiary on various kernel and userlevel aspects of the OpenLinux distribution. Last year he joined the fileystem and storage group at SGI and is focussing on XFS for Linux now.
http://www.ukuug.org/bios+profiles/CHellwig.sht
Some comments from the man himself (Score:5, Interesting)
I feel sorry for the guy.. like so many other linux contributors caught up in this BS..
"Most of that stuff is also bullshit. The folks in IBM LTC that work
onm the kernel are mostly ex Sequent, not ex AIX folks. Now
Sequent also had a SVR4 source license for Dynix/PTX, but in fact
most of the scalability changes in SVR4.2 SM / ES actually come from
Sequent! (Just take a look at the Authors of the VFS and VM design
documents for SVR4.2 ES / MP).
AIX OTOH was only developed with a SVR3 source license up to AIX4,
and neverless the actual kernel does not resemble SVR3 or SVR4 at
all, and although I'm not sure I think they even only used it for userland
not the kernel.
AIX5L (that project Monterey) had additional components licenses from
SCO UnixWare like procfs or bfs - but IBM has very strict policies
that the AIX5 and Linux groups basically don't communicate. For example
I was involved in the JFS/Linux project which is very similar to the JFS2
in AIX5L because they're both based on JFS in OS/2 - when there were
bugs found in the old OS/2 codebase they weren't able to inform the
AIX folks about it or send patches. Similarly I wasn't able to get
information about the layout used for Posix ACL on AIX when I started to
implement those for Linux."
Re:Mr Hellwig (Score:4, Interesting)
In other parts of the document, they take the presence of his contributions to mean that SCO was still involved recently. Wrong.
The older stuff where he had an e-mail address belonging to SCO / Caldera is good, though.
Internet archive (Score:5, Interesting)
Look here [archive.org] and enjoy SCO's own word on how they supported and contributef to Linux. Year 2000 is the best.
Quote from May 2000 [archive.org]
A corporate sponsor of Linux International, SCO has always supported open standards, UNIX Systems and server-based technologies and solutions that benefit business computing. Our engineers have continuously participated in the Open Source movement, providing source code such as lxrun, and the OpenSAR kernel monitoring utility.
Compare this to the legal filing they made here a few days ago telling the Judge that they never contributed Code.
Re:Internet archive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Internet archive (Score:5, Insightful)
> That of course was a different company. The name is the same, but it is otherwise not the same corporate entity.
Yeah, one of the more curious side effects of our IP and corporate laws is that you can buy dead or dying companies and then sue someone as if the damage had been done to you. You can essentially buy the damage; I'm surprised damage isn't being traded in the futures markets.[*]
And it's too bad I can't go down to the retirement home, buy up a bunch of people dying from lung cancer, and then sue the tobacco companies. I need some cash for a new 64-bit computer.
[*] Of course, IMO it's equally odd that you can buy or sell liabilities just as you can damages. When you step back and look at things as they are, it sometimes seems that we live in Bizarro World.
Buying damage (Score:5, Insightful)
You just bought the company, and not only do you get the parts you wanted, you get the other parts, too. Just ask look into buying former/current property used for dry cleaning. Simpler yet, buy property with asbestos insulation.
Perhaps the new SCO bought the old SCOs damage, but they also bought the old SCOs actions wrt Open Source, including Christoph Hellwig's contributions, and all the implications thereof.
My other hope in this current chunk of mess, aside from SCO getting what it deserves, is that Hellwig doesn't suffer for any of this. Not to neglect the rest of the Open Source community, but it may well end up with Hellwig being at the eye of the storm.
Re:Buying damage (Score:4, Informative)
Funny though, I'll bet most of the /. crowd was on the Caldera side of that one. How times change.
That's because MS did actually sabotage DR DOS. DR DOS was better than MS DOS but if you tried to run it underneath windows instead of MS DOS, you would get error messages about using an incompatible version of DOS. Everything still worked but it would pop up error messages anyway.
Re:Buying damage (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Internet archive (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be kind of like DaimlerChrysler claiming they never made the Plymouth Aries K. They certainly didn't in modern times, of course. But they acquired what used to be Chrysler Corp., who owned Plymouth, who made the K. The legacy came with the purchase. But, to add a nice SCO twist to this whimsical example, let's imagine DC is sueing all surviving Aries K owners for not paying a mendatory re-engine fee to become a Mercedes. "You didn't really buy that Plymouth from us, so you don't actually own it."
Ok, so maybe it is a stupid analogy . . . Kinda like the whole SCO suit.
Re:Internet archive (Score:5, Insightful)
One Amazing Lady (Score:4, Interesting)
SCO Supporters (Score:5, Funny)
Where are they now?
Re:SCO Supporters (Score:3, Funny)
Argentina?
It may no longer be a blue world, Max, but Big Blue is still likely to kick some SCO butt.
KFG
Re:SCO Supporters (Score:2, Funny)
Re:SCO Supporters (Score:5, Funny)
Where are they now?
Looking for weapons of mass destruction?
Re:SCO Supporters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SCO Supporters (Score:3, Interesting)
For that matter, wouldnt' it be possible for IBM and SCO to both win their suits? IBM is smacking down on GPL violations and patent issues that don't require them to be innocent of contract violations to still win. SCO might win against IBM, but get crushed when IBM blows them out of the water on GPL and patent violations.
This requires popcorn.
Re:SCO Supporters (Score:3, Insightful)
Pamela Jones and Groklaw is a huge asset (Score:5, Interesting)
Pamala Jones has my early vote for "Linux Booster of the Year for 2003".
Re:Pamela Jones and Groklaw is a huge asset (Score:5, Informative)
If you appreciate what she's doing, and the incredible amount of time and precision and effort behind it, take a minute and make a donation.
I finally got off my behind today and dropped her a few dollars.
Re:Pamela Jones and Groklaw is a huge asset (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll cough up some cash.
Re:Pamela Jones and Groklaw is a huge asset (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't imagine the hours that Pamela has put into this, and from all I've seen, she's not into the tech aspects at all, she was and is a paralegal.
Now, how long before ThinkGeek comes out with "Go Pamela, you go Grrl" T-shirts.???
Re:Pamela Jones and Groklaw is a huge asset (Score:5, Funny)
She has my vote for President.
Re:Pamela Jones and Groklaw is a huge asset (Score:5, Funny)
Fingertips to fingertips, I begin the movement (Score:2)
Slowly, the foolishness of this entire activity will be seen, and then McBride can be sued into non-existence for taking far too much time with these stupidities. He must be made to pay, a la Kenneth Lay, for his hubris.
Um... (Score:5, Funny)
The only problem with that is that Kenneth Lay hasn't paid. At most, they're going to hang a minor board executive and pin the whole thing on him.
I'd rather see him pay a la King Louis XIV.
swiiiiisssh! thump! spurt!
Full article text, properly formatted, no troll (Score:5, Informative)
Cross your heart and hope to die, SCO? Or cross your fingers behind your back? Let's see what the evidence shows.
SCO has specifically mentioned the following four as being code at issue in this case: JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP, and while it is conceivable that the "subject code" they are talking about in this response to IBM's interrogatory is referring to some other code, it seems reasonable to look at the code they have mentioned publicly. Actually, it's more than reasonable. It's our only choice, until they tell us exactly what code they are complaining about with specificity. Is it true that they never "authorized, approved or knowingly released" any of this code for inclusion in any Linux kernel or as part of any Linux distribution?
Let's start with JFS. In the case of JFS, they not only distributed Linux with JFS, one of Caldera's employees, Christoph Hellwig, contributed code to JFS, as Groklaw reported [groklaw.net] on July 18. Here is a snip from that article:
And he is listed on this page [ibm.com] of JFS contributors. Here [ibm.com] is IBM's page on Who Is Using JFS? and it lists United Linux. So they not only released a distro with JFS in it under the GPL, their employee helped make it h
i really can't wait until all of this is over ... (Score:5, Interesting)
i suppose this does pose a threat to linux in terms of leaving a bad taste in vendors' mouths concerning but there really is absolutely no way SCO is going to shut us down.
even if SCO gives linux and gnu somewhat of a bad reputation, we already have major players in the industry who are committed to supporting linux (ibm, novell, sun). and by the time all of this bullshit blows over, linux will be even more robust and marketable, and our detractors will soon find themselves knocking down our doors once again to profit from our technology.
really the only thing we have to fear from the whole sco debacle is discouragement
but really the most appalling thing about the situation is sco's utter lack of common sense; it makes me wonder how they thought they were going to win in the first place (see below). how do they expect their argument to hold up in court when they STILL HAVE NOT YET PRODUCED ANY HARD EVIDENCE?!?
darl mcbride: "well
SCO, if you are reading this, pack your bags, go home. to quote eddie murphy (quoting richard pryor): "have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up."
we all get the point that you don't like us, but unless you are going to actually do something about it, piss off.
Re:i really can't wait until all of this is over . (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't really think they had much of a chance to begin with, but because of economic downturns they decided they wouldn't be going down without a fight, or at least a gasping, death-throw-like struggle... like waving your arms and legs when you're falling off a cliff. It won't help you at all, but hey- why not? Unfortunatley, they decided to fight the bad fight.
Despite all this, I agree with your position of our survival wholeheartedly. Because of the diversity of contributors, Open Source is like sand- they can try to scoop it up all they want, but it'll just slip through their fingers.
Re:i really can't wait until all of this is over . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:i really can't wait until all of this is over . (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me nominate distraction as the biggest risk. Whenever one has had to circle the wagons, the resumed journey is never the same. A wonderful model of meritocracy may be forever changed into a quasi corporate structure -- at the extreme, leading to a world where Legal has to vet everything before its release.
This needn't be a negative, just acknowledgement that linux must evolve in an unexpected way, in order to survive and prosper in this unexpected New World. Still, I shed a tear.
Groklaw and Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
In sharp contrast to /.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: quotes from Chris.. (Score:3, Insightful)
> I wonder why Chris Hellwig himself does not reply.
If he's smart he has a lawyer advising him about that kind of thing right now.
Re:quotes from Chris.. (Score:5, Informative)
"It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware,
I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in
the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare.." (sic)
hint hint...
hint hint hint..
HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT!
Overall Picture (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, there is lot of evidence against SCO and they will lose their case. But the fact is, even they know it. This whole SCO suit is all about keeping Linux from rapid adoption using FUD and legal tactics. With this strategy, Microsoft and allies have found a way to keep Linux away from the mainstream adopters. What's to stop Micosoft from using another puppet after SCO has lost it's case ? They've got enough money to throw around and huge incentive to do it.
SCO losing the case won't change anything. It's quite easy to bring up another entirely different legal issue concerning Linux and use FUD and media to publicize it. It takes at least 2 years to resolve such a case and Linux adoption will be affected for that period. Whoever said Microsoft has no answer to the Linux movement is merely ignorant, IMHO. Microsoft has laid out the tactics and played the first move. They are taking advantage of the weaknesses in the judicial system to keep legal issues concerning Linux afloat for a long time. What shoud the community do against these dirty tricks ?
Redhat's fund towards fighting future legal challenges is a step in the right direction. What we need is some way to certify Linux as free from copyright infringements and patent issues. A consortium (a division of OSDL, may be) can be formed to exclusively monitor the legal aspects of Linux Development process. A request for copyrights of all the code gone into the Linux kernel can pre-empt further copyright infringement lawsuits. I am not sure about the practicality of these steps, but we need to develop a sense of trust in the minds of mainstream adopters about the linux development process and other legal issues. Feel free to toss in your ideas.
Emmm.....is this fair? (Score:2)
Grow up. Remember just yesterday [slashdot.org] there was discussion about how a) open source advocates love a good fight and b) they always blame everything on Microsoft?
Guess what? It's apparently true.
Re:Emmm.....is this fair? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well MS was the first company to pay SCO a ton of money to bankroll this thing. SUN was the second. These companies have repeatedly said awful things about linux and open source sometimes reffering to OSS developers as communists and cancer.
It makes perfect sense to presume that MS is behind all this. It's just like them to something like this and they even hinted at doing something like this in one of the haloween documents.
If it walks like a duck
Re:Emmm.....is this fair? (Score:3, Informative)
1) IBM has more patents that M$
2) Meritless case has no affect on adoption according to gartner & the like. In fact, the opposite appears to be happening - more adoptions since lawsuit announced. CIO's aren't scared of this. I'll go dig up the graphs if I really have to, but I'm drunk and tired tonight, and tired of seeing them in the trade rags.
3) You have made it clear that you are worried about that which you should not be worried about.
I HAVE SPOKEN.
Plausible, but is it true? (Score:3, Informative)
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/linux/archives/00019
16% may be a big number or a small number, depending on your point of view, but it's not what I'd call a palpable blow to Linux.
Re:Overall Picture (Score:3, Insightful)
> and they will lose their case. But the fact is,
> even they know it. This whole SCO suit is all
> about keeping Linux from rapid adoption using FUD
> and legal tactics.
No, the whole SCO suit is about keeping the stock price rising over 4 consecutive quarters.
If McBride et al can manage this, then they qualify for some huge payouts. They're currently midway through their 3rd quarter of rises, so there's somewhere between 4 and 6 months to go.
Supervisor = permission? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you get specific permission from the actual 'company', the actions of any individual can still be considered improper. ( excluding the board, or CEO
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:3, Funny)
Careful, someone in Congress might get some ideas.
Re:Supervisor = permission? (Score:5, Informative)
Now, go back and read the article(s). SCO was advertising (on their own or via UnitedLinux) many of the features they are now suing over. They knew what was going on. They condoned it. They are engaging in barratry.
IANAL; clearly, neither are you.
Not exactly barratry. (IANAL) (Score:3, Informative)
Just one.
They've said that they'd file more.
Lots more.
Maybe lots and lots more.
But they've only filed one so far.
Barratry means filing multiple cases to harass someone. Like if I drag you into court on some charge (real or not). Then I file another one against you. Then another one.
It would be VERY INTERESTING if SCO did file more claims and a judge ruled that SCO was attempting to harass "Linux".
SCO Contributors to Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Without a kernel debugger, developing an SMP kernel becomes increasingly difficult. Register at Groklaw, or wait till the article is published for all the nitty-gritty details.
great but necessarily sufficient? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is to say, couldn't they conceivably claim issues with JCS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP code that's simply separate from what their boy Hellig was working near?
I realize that either way their argument is crap but it, if they are going to pull something like that, it's crap that they can still, albeit insultingly, disingenuously, and vexatiously, hold onto their claims and simply fail to admit what obvious liars they are?
Just wondering.
Dastardly Villians (Score:5, Funny)
However here we have in real life several characters (that is SCO's upper managerment and new found lawyer buddys) that fit this description neatly. So let hurry this story line along - I will go pop some more popcorn.
Legolas said it best (Score:5, Funny)
"Ai! Ai!" wailed Legolas, "A Balrog is come!"
s/Legolas/Darl/
I don't think a picture of PJ has ever been published, but I'm definitely getting this visual of 60'+ tall, wreathed in smoke, with a lash of flame close at hand for when fools trespass.
Keep up the good work PJ - and where is that 'donate via paypal' button on your site?
Re:Legolas said it best (Score:3, Informative)
Front Page [groklaw.net], left side, vertically between the links and the login form.
It was obvious before this... (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO's case was never based on fact, they were using litigation as a business tool. A republican behavior becoming all too popular these days. And what's the downside? DirecTV sues the innocent along with the guilty and who's stopping them? And don't get me started on RIAA. And when it comes to fraud look at Enron, WorldCom and Putman. Millions of people bilked out of billions of dollars and how many have gone to jail? Three or four? McBride's playing the odds that even if the ploy doesn't work...and it's safe to say it's probably not going like they hoped...the company was dead anyway and their chances of facing any serious prison time were slim to none. When government is in the pocket of big business lobbyists, this is the reality. Welcome to Bush World.
Let's not take anything away from the outstanding research from Groklaw, though. That's really good work by someone there.
Deutsche Bank bullish on SCO (Score:3, Informative)
Weasel words. (Score:3, Interesting)
I see three examples of it here. The opening phrase allows the writer to say, "Oh, I didn't think you wanted that information." The phrase "authorized, approved or knowingly released" allows the writer to respond that any releases (note they never claim not to have released the code) were not sanctioned. And, of course the big one: "the subject code." Until SCO deigns to define what code they're talking about, they can continue to claim that any releases they authorized are not the code in question.
In spite of this, they're in for a rough time if they need to argue in front of a judge that all of Caldera's pre-lawsuit Linux work was unintentional.
Re:Conspiricy theory (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Conspiricy theory (Score:3, Informative)
The evidence that SCO was broadly aware of this work lies in the SCO Linux 4 ("powered by UnitedLinux
Re:Conspiricy theory (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think I'm the only person thinking this: what if SCO planted their code in Linux? Maybe they were planning this all along.
Occam's Razor for conspiracy theorists suggests that one should never ascribe to conspiracy what can be ascribed to incompetence. SCO/Caldera submtted a bunch of code to the Linux kernel. Much later, Darl and company come along, see code in the Linux kernel that matches code they have copyright, and without a clue about what they are doing, thing that they've found a goldmine.
Assuredly SCO has given ample evidece of being blindingly incompetent in the past, such that sheer incompetence is hands-down the most plausible explanation here.
-Rob
Re:Conspiricy theory (Score:3, Funny)
That's giving too much moral credit. Maybe they know; maybe they just don't care. But that would be giving them too much intellectual credit. Decisions, decisions. I'm waiting for a Chewbacca defense eventually.
Re:Conspiricy theory (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Conspiricy theory (Score:3, Informative)
I believe you are thinking of Hanlon's razor, Occam's razor is more general.
Re:Conspiricy theory (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Conspiracy theory (Score:2)
And that's why SCO deserves no sympathy.
Re:Conspiricy theory (Score:3, Insightful)
And what we're all waiting to hear, is if they've been criminally incompetent.
Re:Conspiricy theory (Score:5, Interesting)
To the extent that an agent of The SCO Group helped develop and promote these technologies, The SCO Group is barred from making claims against others on that basis. There are lots of other defenses available, and other forms of estoppel than simple promissory estoppel (when you say something is acceptable, either explicitly or implicitly), but the above would apply to many defendants at once.
Re:Conspiricy theory (Score:3, Interesting)
So this should be an affirmative defense against violating their copyright on these portions of the code that they intentionally placed under the GPL, assuming that the corporate entity SCO knowingly did so, the agent had proper
Re:Old news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Old news (Score:5, Insightful)
Any judge who believes a company that suddenly claims ignorance after years of marketing Linux under the GPL, unlimited access to Linux source-code, and now proof of Linux code submissions, should have his financials investigated just to be sure his rulings don't return a profit.
= 9J =
Re:Old news (Score:5, Interesting)
In this I wholeheartedly agree. Not to mention that if this goes to court, which it presumably eventually will, killing as much time as possible so the perps can liquidate as much of their holdings as they think the SEC will ignore.
I hope the judge explains the penalties for perjury very carefully to the members of both legal teams while stareing straight at the SCO side of the table. Including Darl McBride if he has what it takes to show up without dipping his face in liquid nitrogen to keep it straight while he testifies.
Bah, bunch of losers, and I'm damned if I can understand why the VC and market analyst people cannot see that. There must be some kind of a soundproof barrier between reality and the guys bidding this crap on the marketplace floor...
But like P. T. Barnum said, there is one born every minute.
Cheers, Gene
Re:Old news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Old news (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll dig up the old standby: RTFA. Better yet, RTFPTLTFTA, otherwise known as "read the f'ing post that links to the f'ing article", as it pretty well spells out the difference between what Groklaw discovered and what's been "known for quite a while" - namely that SCO willfully and knowingly not only distributed but also contributed to specific features of the kernel that they specifically claimed never to have touched in their legal filings. As far as I know, this is completely new - and it's not just an allegation, it's proved in the linked article.
In other words, they both modified and distributed the specific code they are claiming to now have been stolen from them and they did it under the GPL. This code did not get "misappropriated" from SCO's Unix into Linux, this code was put into Linux by SCO. This is huge.
IANAL, but it would seem to me that this blows pretty much their entire case out of the water in one fell swoop. This renders any contractual issues (the basis of their case against IBM) moot and leaves them only one fallback - that the GPL is invalid and is trumped by their own copyright. Of course, this is something they've also been saying now for a few months (not since the beginning of their case, though - I think they probably realized their case against IBM was flimsy at best a while back), but to say this news is "old" or doesn't affect their legal standing seems to be a misunderstanding of the facts.
If these are facts (and it seems Groklaw has done their homework to me), then SCO will get laughed out of court on day one. They did something, they lied about it, then they filed a lawsuit based on that lie... and now they've been caught.
Re:Old news (Score:2)
Re:Old news (Score:5, Informative)
Well, if the programmer had the OK to release this from a higher-up, or if he did so with a reasonable understanding that it was OK, he was acting within the scope of authority. At that point, SCO knew because he *was* SCO in terms of that transaction.
Re:Old news (Score:5, Insightful)
Further, given that Caldera's marketing department was touting some of the features (SMP, JFS, etc) in their literature (for their Linux distro), SCOX (nee Caldera) has no way at all to convincingly argue that this was not authorized or not known about.
SCO's toast.
Re:Old news (Score:5, Interesting)
It could get more complicated than that. IIRC, SCO is claiming that its existing code was taken from another product and put into the Linux kernel. In that case, the "scope of authority" would have to be the authority to relicense that code under the GPL.
But if the programmer only had authority to help write code for the Linux kernel... that doesn't necessarily include the authority to relicense SCO's other code.
Anyway, I think SCO will lose because they released the code under the GPL. Copyright is strict liability. Even if they didn't know there own code was in it, publishing it under the GPL puts it out under the GPL.
The fact that their own employee may have contributed some of this code directly only adds fuel to the fire that will take SCO down.
BTW, I'm a law student too.
Re:Old news (Score:5, Informative)
The statutory position (Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 128-30) codifies the common law and allows certain "good faith" assumptions to be made, including that a person held out as an officer or agent is properly exercising the power customarily given to a person in that position. As the person giving away the code is a senior figure in SCO's open source operations it may be held, under Australian law, that the outsiders were entitled to assume that he was authorized to give away code on his corporate employer's behalf.
Again I have no idea of the general US position.
Re:Old news (Score:3, Funny)
Congratulations, you hit the bullseye :). It now remains to wrap it up in appropriate legalese.
Crap shoot (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Leave SCO alone you communists. (Score:5, Informative)
Kleedrac
Re:Leave SCO alone you communists. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bite
You are forgetting the fact that these patents were not enforced until SCO picked the fight. Also SCO never asked for clarification, they just filed suit. IBM probly has some hideous patents hidden in its massive fortress of leagal solitude. I feel no remose for the kid punces the 800lb gorilla in the face, and then claims to be the victm when he gets his ass kicked.
As for Communisim, since when is doing your own thing communism, I like, enjoy and profit from open source software. In a way it is the Nash Equilibrium, in which we do not only what is best for us, but also what is best for the group. Now this is decidedly not communistic, its enlightened self intrest. After all its free as in freedom, do you horde your speech?
I am done, so why don't you take your troll energy and post some goatse links.
I'm willing to bet... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:We still have problems people.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure a rogue programmer could do something on his own, or not be aware of the legal nuances behind a piece of code. But if a programmer is working on it, and the marketing department knows and advertises it, it's really hard to say that management and legal didn't know about it.
And yet that's what SCO is saying.
Re:We still have problems people.....NO. (Score:5, Insightful)
Once the Groklaw site is no longer slashdotted go there and look at the discussion about Mr. Hellwig
He was not a peon and his boss was in charge of a couple of programs that SCO publicly supported. Like LSB.
That being said all the code writes to some extend are peons, but that does not mean SCO managements are not responsible
Lastly they will have an impossible task claiming that their peons are different from IBM's peons.
If SCO is not responsible neither is IBM. If works both ways.
Re:We still have problems people.... (Score:4, Insightful)
BEEP. No Soup for YOU!
Any employee of a company can be an "Authorized Agent", or in common language a representative. This responibility is handed out by giving you:
A phone with direct dial.
A business card.
A paycheck that covers time spent outside the building (and not sick or on vacation.)
Permission to speak to non-employees during business hours.
And many more trivial type things.
Anything a company lets you do is your job and their problem. Thats why corporate manuals are always thick books.
And laywers get rich.
Re:We still have problems people.... (Score:3, Insightful)
if their system sucked so much that it lacked control that's their own goddamn fault.
when you're going bankrupt you can't really start saying that "no, we didn't place those orders for which we are in debt now! you see, it was the summer intern who had only told his boss! the ceo didn't alert the board so they're invalid!!"(of course, special cases apply but for everyday things.. a
Re:We still have problems people.... (Score:5, Informative)
What PJ & company have done is assemble the pieces to show that what was being contributed by Christoph Hellwig (and other peons at SCO) was well understood by both his immediate boss and by corporate management. There is no plausible deniability.
Probably the best thing to come out of all the GrokLaw digging is this quote:
The full thread is here [iu.edu].Re:We still have problems people.... (Score:5, Interesting)
They could simply say that Hellwig was doing this in his spare time, or that he and his boss were coding for Linux in their spare time. The problem here is, Hellwig is a peon. Just another worker bee. Doesn't matter what employees do, it's a question of whether the top executive know. Did they know what Hellwig was doing? Did they realize all the implications? Those are the real questions. And here we enter the realm of plausible deniability (lawyers can jump in to correct me anytime now). Did the executives know what one worker bee was doing? Hell no! Why do they care what one of their workers was doing in his free time?
Wake me up when Hellwig's boss's boss's boss's boss knew about the problem, understood the implications, wrote a letter, and forwarded it to his boss, who then fired it up through management to the upper echelons.
You're wrong actually. A CEO is entirely responsible even if he is not aware of what is happening. This is the first thing anyone learns in asset protection. You have to be aware because if you are not you will still be held liable. CEO's have been held liable in the past. This is not theory, it has happened.
Read the article and see why you are wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
And if that was the argument being made you might have a point. But the article provides proof that SCO employees, operating under their manager's authority, put the code in question into Linux. This is not merely a distribution, but a contribution.
The "Contract" is right there (Score:5, Insightful)
Thing the second, the contract is right there for you to read, it is called the "General Public License".
The prima-facia evidence of agreement is, in fact, the act of distribution. The only legal way to distribute a work governed(*) by the GPL is to agree to the GPL.
If it(+) is not evidence of agreement, then it is INSTANTLY and UNARGUABLY prima-facia evidence of copyright infringement. Remember the whole $150,000 each instance penalty and all that?
This isn't rocket science here. Either they had express individual permission to distribute the material from ALL the authors, OR they agreed to the GPL, OR they are copyright thieves. There is no fourth choice with respect to this body of code.
(*) re "governed by the GPL". I can have a body of code (art) and give it to different people with different agreements and understandings attached to each separate transaction. Nothing magically lets one provanance [historical path of possession] jump the curb into another, even if the two pass eachother on the same network adaptor. If SCO *GOT* the material under the GPL, and didn't go back and re-get it under some other more invested agreement with each author (really the holder(s) of copyrights) then they can only distribute it in turn under the rules and restrictions placed on them by the provanance, namely the GPL.
(+) "it" being, "taking the code (art) contributed (and hence, who's copyright is owned/held) by parties other than the distributor".
So if they got it ONLY by GPL they may ONLY pass it on by GPL.
Period.
Re:The "Contract" is right there (finishing up) (Score:5, Insightful)
The details of the contract from the GPL which govern are encompased in the following:
1) That SCO did receive the Linux kernel under the GPL.
2) That SCO did either modify existing code or add additional code to that kernel.
3) That SCO did gather those modifications together, thus creating a derrivative work
4) That SCO did then distribute that derrivative work either:
4a) as a compostite work under the GPL as requrired by their inclusion of the GPLed code they did not create themselves
OR
4b) in direct and deliberate contravention of the governing agreement (the GPL) and thus in violation of US and International copyright law.
5) That SCO did, through the actions of their employee(s), also directly submit many/some/all of those modifictions to the central management facilities of the Linux kernel, with the understanding that accpetance of such submission was prima-facia evidence of agreement to allow others to distribute those changes under the GPL.
In the case of 4a and 5, separately and taken togher, SCO needs must have put at least one chain of provenance of that code under the terms of the GPL
In the case of 4b SCO has spesifically and directly broken the law and may be held liable before a civil (or ciriminal in the DMCA age) court.
In no case is SCO stripped of their ability to separately distribute their WHOLLY ORIGINAL code (art) under any ADDITIONAL terms they wish, establishing a separate entitiy and provanance for such further distribution.
They MAY NOT, however, "take back" the GPLed provanance because they spesifically waived that right when they established that provanance.
They also MAY NOT separately distribute under new/separate/other provinance any elements (art) of their manufacture which are not themselves WHOLLY ORIGINAL.
The last is the fine point that makes some people barf up FUD so easily. If I sit down with a clean editor and make (say) a serial driver module that can be linked to the Linux kernel, I may keep it to myself, distribute it under GPL, or distribute it (separate from the kernel) under any other termis I choose. In fact I may do ALL THREE at the same time. The blank editor (and presuming the absence of significant copying) creates a "new work" with no provanance.
If I start with the *EXISTING* linux kernel serial driver, then I may keep it to myself or distributed it under the GPL, but I *MAY *NOT* distribute it under other terms I choose. The original work retains its provinance, and so its legal standing within my new work.
This is no more different than writing a novel. If you write a novel from scratch it is yours. If you write by simply editing my novel it is still mine even though it is also now kind of yours.
The only grey area comes when you write a new novel on a blank page, by reading all of my work, and then basing "significant" portions of your novel on the characters and situations that you harvested out of my work. [This being why you, for instance, cant write (and expect to publish with impunity) your own "Star Trek" novel without the permission of Paramount, who owns "Star Trek" just now.]
This is not that hard people... 8-)