[NTLUG:Discuss] SCO, IBM, MS, Linux

[Kenneth Loafman]

terry wrote:
> Steve Baker wrote:
> 
>> jeremy wrote:
>>
>>> Another twist is that SCO already released the code under GPL in there
>>> own distro...  talk about a bone headed move on their part!
>>> I don't see how they can successfully sue anyone for using what they
>>> already released as open source!
>>
>>
>>
>> I read someplace that they claim the infringement happened BEFORE
>> they shipped copied of Linux under GPL and that they were (at that
>> time) unaware that illegal copies of their code were in Linux.  Had
>> they known, they would not have GPL'ed it - so (in effect) they were
>> tricked into GPL'ing their own code.
> 
> 
> Well, that just boils down to:  who did it first?  BUT, does it matter?
> Bottom line is, that they did it too, whether they did it purposefully 
> or not shouldn't matter.  It was theirs to give, they gave it, and 
> that's that.  Right?
> 
> It's interesting to note that:
> For us [the open source community] to use even a tiny piece of someone 
> else's copy written code  is totally unacceptable , and against the law.
> BUT, anyone can use any of our open source code on any other application 
> they want.  Once it's open source, it's free for all, it's public 
> domain. Right?   (After it's being used by someone else, only the DATE 
> will determine who it belonged to [first] or where it originated from. 
> And is it really possible to accurately date code or 'property' or data?)
> 
> If just one or two lines of code shows up somewhere in the thousands of 
> lines of code in some open source program or library, who's to say, [or 
> how can they prove], that it wasn't produced coincidentally via some 
> sort of process other than thievery, i.e. reverse engineering, or..?? , 
> well, I dono, cuz I'm not a programmer, but really curious as to how 
> something like this can be proven "beyond the shadow of a doubt."
> 
> This is the issue of most concern to MS.  It's obviously MS's position 
> that the open source community should not be allowed to exist because 
> it's too easy for proprietary, copy written, code and trade secrets to 
> creep into open source applications and become public domain, therefore, 
> gradually destroying the software industry. What  used to be a very 
> profitable industry will gradually wither on the vine.  Win, loose, or 
> draw, it doesn't matter, this case may be just the platform they were 
> looking for to voice this opinion or position, and how better to do it, 
> than to let someone else do it for them, (with a little help from MS 
> dollars).

A couple of lines of code would not matter.  It can be argued (and has 
been successfully done) that to get from point A to point B in code 
space has a finite number of algorithms.  Some are obvious to those 
"trained in the arts", and some are not so obvious.  Since the SCO suit 
deals with Trade Secrets and not Patent, its fairly easy to show that 
two programmers can indeed come up with the same solution.  If it were 
Patented, then the first one to Patent would win.  To prove Trade Secret 
theft is much harder.  SCO will need a smoking gun, something that is a 
direct copy of one of their pieces of code and not just the same 
approach to the problem.  Plus they will need to show that they 
maintained Due Diligence in handling the original code.  Those are hard 
to prove, especially since they would need printouts (not time stamped 
disk files) to prove ownership of the code in the first place.  Too much 
could be faked if the courts allowed electronic media as witness.  I 
doubt that they followed forensic techniques back in the 70's and 80's, 
so that may nullify the Due Diligence part of it in a hurry.

Its all smoke and mirrors, trying to get a suitor to buy out a failing 
company.  When the suit fails, SCO will no longer be a problem.

As to MS - I know they steal IP - I know of one meeting with Gates when 
he said "We don't need your source, we have your demo." after a failed 
discussion where the owner wanted to maintain control of the source.  No 
implication, he flat out said that they would reverse engineer the demo 
and produce their own source.  With him at the helm, who would imagine 
that MS would respect the GPL or anything else.  With a few Billion in 
the bank to buy off the courts, MS can pretty much do anything it wants. 
  They proved that with the antitrust suit.

...Ken