SCO против Линукса!
http://172.16.12.8/issue91/lg_bytes.html
As readers are surely aware, SCO (the software company formerly known as Caldera) has launched a hostile legal attack against IBM in particular, and indeed against the GNU/Linux community as a whole. Although the details will remain somewhat obscured until the case is thrashed out in court, it appears that SCO is alleging that IBM took code it had licensed from SCO (for AIX) and showed it to Linux kernel developers. It was access to this code that allowed GNU/Linux to become the stable and powerful operating system it is today... or so the story goes. The entire suit can be read at SCO's website.
This has lead to some bizarre situations, such as SCO threatening to sue it's partners in the UnitedLinux project, and the suspension of its own GNU/Linux related activities. One can only guess at how this plays with SCO's GNU/Linux customers who have now been marooned in a dubious legal situation. Perhaps they could sue SCO, since SCO was illegally selling intellectual property SCO owned (or something!).
To try and make some sense of this situation, it is useful to read Eric Raymond's OSI position paper on the topic. This document is a fine read, and gives an interesting overview of Unix history as related to the legal case. It would appear that there are one or two inconsistencies, inaccuracies and perhaps outright lies and deceptions in SCO's claims. Some of this madness is further highlighted in Linux Weekly News's account of SCO's refusal to come clean with details of what code infringes on their intellectual property (at least without signing a nondisclosure agreement). SCO CEO Darl McBride is quoted as saying:
"The Linux community would have me publish it now, (so they can have it) laundered by the time we can get to a court hearing. That's not the way we're going to go."
But as LWN points out
"The Linux community, of course, would be incapable of "laundering" the code, since it is, according to SCO, incapable of implementing (or reimplementing) anything so advanced without stealing it.
...
Such a series of events would not change SCO's case in any way, however. If IBM truly misappropriated SCO's code, that act remains. And it is an act that cannot be hidden; the evidence is distributed, beyond recall, all over the Internet. And all over the physical world as well.
One has to wonder who was responsible for stealing the "intellectual" part of SCO's intellectual property.
How this will all pan out is anybody's guess. It is certain that the story has some way to run yet. Further spice was added to the mix by Microsoft's decision to license SCO software leading to suspicions that they were attempting to bankroll SCO's legal adventures and help to undermine confidence in Free and Open Source software. Reports that SCO has destroyed archives of the Caldera-Microsoft antitrust lawsuit documentation have fuelled such speculation. Novell weighing in and claiming ownership of the contested code has further confused matters. An interesting development is the granting by German courts of an injunction preventing SCO from saying (in Germany) that Linux contains illegally obtained SCO intellectual property.
Probably the best course of action is that proposed by Ray Dessen on the Debian Project lists and reported by Debian Weekly News
"the issue so far consists of allegations and rumors from a company that is far along the way to obsolescence. They have yet to produce anything that could be remotely considered evidence, while there have been concrete indications of SCO itself violating the GPL by the inclusion of GPLed filesystem code from the Linux kernel into its proprietary (Unixware?) kernel."
This "wait and see" approach is also the one taken by Linux Torvalds. If you want to be more active, you could start shouting "Hey SCO, Sue Me" or answer Eric Raymond's request for information
As readers are surely aware, SCO (the software company formerly known as Caldera) has launched a hostile legal attack against IBM in particular, and indeed against the GNU/Linux community as a whole. Although the details will remain somewhat obscured until the case is thrashed out in court, it appears that SCO is alleging that IBM took code it had licensed from SCO (for AIX) and showed it to Linux kernel developers. It was access to this code that allowed GNU/Linux to become the stable and powerful operating system it is today... or so the story goes. The entire suit can be read at SCO's website.
This has lead to some bizarre situations, such as SCO threatening to sue it's partners in the UnitedLinux project, and the suspension of its own GNU/Linux related activities. One can only guess at how this plays with SCO's GNU/Linux customers who have now been marooned in a dubious legal situation. Perhaps they could sue SCO, since SCO was illegally selling intellectual property SCO owned (or something!).
To try and make some sense of this situation, it is useful to read Eric Raymond's OSI position paper on the topic. This document is a fine read, and gives an interesting overview of Unix history as related to the legal case. It would appear that there are one or two inconsistencies, inaccuracies and perhaps outright lies and deceptions in SCO's claims. Some of this madness is further highlighted in Linux Weekly News's account of SCO's refusal to come clean with details of what code infringes on their intellectual property (at least without signing a nondisclosure agreement). SCO CEO Darl McBride is quoted as saying:
"The Linux community would have me publish it now, (so they can have it) laundered by the time we can get to a court hearing. That's not the way we're going to go."
But as LWN points out
"The Linux community, of course, would be incapable of "laundering" the code, since it is, according to SCO, incapable of implementing (or reimplementing) anything so advanced without stealing it.
...
Such a series of events would not change SCO's case in any way, however. If IBM truly misappropriated SCO's code, that act remains. And it is an act that cannot be hidden; the evidence is distributed, beyond recall, all over the Internet. And all over the physical world as well.
One has to wonder who was responsible for stealing the "intellectual" part of SCO's intellectual property.
How this will all pan out is anybody's guess. It is certain that the story has some way to run yet. Further spice was added to the mix by Microsoft's decision to license SCO software leading to suspicions that they were attempting to bankroll SCO's legal adventures and help to undermine confidence in Free and Open Source software. Reports that SCO has destroyed archives of the Caldera-Microsoft antitrust lawsuit documentation have fuelled such speculation. Novell weighing in and claiming ownership of the contested code has further confused matters. An interesting development is the granting by German courts of an injunction preventing SCO from saying (in Germany) that Linux contains illegally obtained SCO intellectual property.
Probably the best course of action is that proposed by Ray Dessen on the Debian Project lists and reported by Debian Weekly News
"the issue so far consists of allegations and rumors from a company that is far along the way to obsolescence. They have yet to produce anything that could be remotely considered evidence, while there have been concrete indications of SCO itself violating the GPL by the inclusion of GPLed filesystem code from the Linux kernel into its proprietary (Unixware?) kernel."
This "wait and see" approach is also the one taken by Linux Torvalds. If you want to be more active, you could start shouting "Hey SCO, Sue Me" or answer Eric Raymond's request for information
Сам-то всё прочитал?
Блять.
Ты сам всё прочитал?
И ответь, пожалуйста, на вопрос: зачем ты это сюда написал?
Ты сам всё прочитал?
И ответь, пожалуйста, на вопрос: зачем ты это сюда написал?
интересно очень! это же оффициальный судебный язык и там рассказали все об истрории Unix и Linux 
существует правило такое: когда люди были еще бедные то мирно жили и потом стали богатыми и друг друга больше не любили .... 
Кому интересно?
эх... не успел я отметиться
Torvalds Sounds Off On SCO Lawsuit
By Paula Rooney, CRN
Waltham, Mass. -- Linus Torvalds won't render his own verdict on SCO Group's legal case against IBM until the Unix code in question is revealed in court.
In an e-mail response to CRN, Torvalds, widely considered the father of Linux, said he is awaiting judgment until SCO identifies the Unix code IBM allegedly misappropriated and handed over to the open-source community.
But at this point, he said he's skeptical the case has merit.
"SCO isn't even telling what they have, and I'm not a lawyer anyway," Torvalds wrote. "The people I've spoken to seem to think the merit of the case lies in whatever details, and since SCO hasn't disclosed any of those details, they can't say."
Torvalds compared the situation to Clonaid's debunked claim earlier this year that it had cloned a human infant.
"SCO is playing it like the Raelians the organization backed by Clonaid's founder, known as Rael, saying, 'We'll show you proof in a few weeks, through an expert panel that we trust.' Let's see if there is any baby or not."
Torvalds wrote he sees no "smoking gun" in the Linux code, nor does he hold IBM responsible for the dispute.
"I haven't seen anything that would imply that IBM has done anything wrong, so until I hear otherwise, I'm just assuming it's just a case of business as usual--when SCO can't make it in the market, sue and go after the deep pockets."
SCO officials insist the case it filed against IBM in March has legal merit, but refused to discuss the code in question.
For its part, IBM denied all of SCO's allegations in its response to the lawsuit filed on April 30. A court date has not yet been set, SCO officials said.
Some observers--particularly those in the Linux camp--speculate that SCO's motive is to get a quick settlement from IBM, while others say it is positioning itself--or its key Unix System V assets --for acquisition.
One source close to SCO confirmed that IBM lawyers are in "discussions about possible discussions" with SCO's legal team.
For its part, SCO officials insist its legal claims are valid and the code in question will be revealed in court.
"SCO does not comment on rumors or speculation," said Jeff Hunsaker, senior vice president of worldwide marketing at SCO. "The only reason we are making these moves in the industry is to protect our intellectual property."
At least one attorney specializing in intellectual property said that while he does not believe the case has legal merit, IBM might settle to prevent the case from dragging on and hampering its ability to migrate customers to Linux.
"I don't think there's a smoking gun, and it'll take a lot of hard work to identify what SCO thinks has gone wrong," said Tom Carey, a partner and chair of the business department at Bromberg & Sunstein, a law firm specializing in intellectual property in Boston.
"My belief is that IBM is far too sophisticated a company not to create a Chinese wall between its AIX and Linux development groups and that they carefully thought through what AIX development work they might have created by itself, and what it would contribute to the open-source community. It's far too cautious a company with policies and procedures in place for that situation to occur. There's a low probability that there's a valid trade secret claim."
Carey noted that the Linux community will write around any technical problems once the code is revealed.
"It's in IBM's interest to have Linux clear of this situation and if the problem becomes serious enough, IBM will make it go away," the attorney added. "If trade secrets are the issue, it wouldn't be hard for the Linux community to recode the offending software."
This article appears courtesy of CRN, the newspaper for builders of technology solutions.
By Paula Rooney, CRN
Waltham, Mass. -- Linus Torvalds won't render his own verdict on SCO Group's legal case against IBM until the Unix code in question is revealed in court.
In an e-mail response to CRN, Torvalds, widely considered the father of Linux, said he is awaiting judgment until SCO identifies the Unix code IBM allegedly misappropriated and handed over to the open-source community.
But at this point, he said he's skeptical the case has merit.
"SCO isn't even telling what they have, and I'm not a lawyer anyway," Torvalds wrote. "The people I've spoken to seem to think the merit of the case lies in whatever details, and since SCO hasn't disclosed any of those details, they can't say."
Torvalds compared the situation to Clonaid's debunked claim earlier this year that it had cloned a human infant.
"SCO is playing it like the Raelians the organization backed by Clonaid's founder, known as Rael, saying, 'We'll show you proof in a few weeks, through an expert panel that we trust.' Let's see if there is any baby or not."
Torvalds wrote he sees no "smoking gun" in the Linux code, nor does he hold IBM responsible for the dispute.
"I haven't seen anything that would imply that IBM has done anything wrong, so until I hear otherwise, I'm just assuming it's just a case of business as usual--when SCO can't make it in the market, sue and go after the deep pockets."
SCO officials insist the case it filed against IBM in March has legal merit, but refused to discuss the code in question.
For its part, IBM denied all of SCO's allegations in its response to the lawsuit filed on April 30. A court date has not yet been set, SCO officials said.
Some observers--particularly those in the Linux camp--speculate that SCO's motive is to get a quick settlement from IBM, while others say it is positioning itself--or its key Unix System V assets --for acquisition.
One source close to SCO confirmed that IBM lawyers are in "discussions about possible discussions" with SCO's legal team.
For its part, SCO officials insist its legal claims are valid and the code in question will be revealed in court.
"SCO does not comment on rumors or speculation," said Jeff Hunsaker, senior vice president of worldwide marketing at SCO. "The only reason we are making these moves in the industry is to protect our intellectual property."
At least one attorney specializing in intellectual property said that while he does not believe the case has legal merit, IBM might settle to prevent the case from dragging on and hampering its ability to migrate customers to Linux.
"I don't think there's a smoking gun, and it'll take a lot of hard work to identify what SCO thinks has gone wrong," said Tom Carey, a partner and chair of the business department at Bromberg & Sunstein, a law firm specializing in intellectual property in Boston.
"My belief is that IBM is far too sophisticated a company not to create a Chinese wall between its AIX and Linux development groups and that they carefully thought through what AIX development work they might have created by itself, and what it would contribute to the open-source community. It's far too cautious a company with policies and procedures in place for that situation to occur. There's a low probability that there's a valid trade secret claim."
Carey noted that the Linux community will write around any technical problems once the code is revealed.
"It's in IBM's interest to have Linux clear of this situation and if the problem becomes serious enough, IBM will make it go away," the attorney added. "If trade secrets are the issue, it wouldn't be hard for the Linux community to recode the offending software."
This article appears courtesy of CRN, the newspaper for builders of technology solutions.
Оставить комментарий
eee1