I'd like to see the list (as well as knowing which kernel version the
list comes from) as would many others, I suspect.
Brian Wheeler
[email protected]
---------------------
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
SCO Just sent over a list of contaminated files with a "bill of health"
certification for Linux that if we remove the identified files
they will certify our Linux distribution as clean. They are also sending
out some form of statement that we are
not affiliated with them, and that we are competitors of SCO since we
use Linux. They claim the following and I have
a listing of files, lines numbers, etc. they told us we must remove in
order for our Linux appliances to be considered
"clean." This info might be useful to others. They have a cert program
to remove the areas.
Here it is. I can get the line numbers of the file and their names if
anyone needs it, but the list is very big.
RCU
46 files
109,688 lines
NUMA
101 files
56,587 lines
JFS
44 files
32,224 lines
XFS
173 Files
119,130 lines
SMP
1,185 files
829,393 lines
Total files/lines they [allege] contains SCO source code
1,549 files
1,147,022 lines
If you guys want the specific line numbers and filenames, I will ask
them to post the specific filenames/line numbers they claim
are theirs. They stated we can ship Linux with fear of being sued if we
comply with their Linux Certification Program.
brian wheeler wrote:
>I'd like to see the list (as well as knowing which kernel version the
>list comes from) as would many others, I suspect.
>
>Brian Wheeler
>[email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
I'll post the entire listing with line numbers of the files SCO
[alleges] were taken from UNIX by IBM and others.
Jeff
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:27:37 -0600, Jeff V. Merkey <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'll post the entire listing with line numbers of the files SCO
> [alleges] were taken from UNIX by IBM and others.
Jeff,
Could you please digitally sign this mail that you are planning to
send or otherwise provide notorisation that confirms you definately
mean this?
I'd love for you to accept liability for this so we can pass all SCO
enquiries on to you.
Jon.
Jon Masters wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>Could you please digitally sign this mail that you are planning to
>send or otherwise provide notorisation that confirms you definately
>mean this?
>
>I'd love for you to accept liability for this so we can pass all SCO
>enquiries on to you.
>
>Jon.
>
>
>
Yes. I can do even better.
I met with Darl McBride this afternoon regarding the GrokSmear postings
(First time I've ever met him) at SCO's
request -- they invited me over and were trying to put out some sort of
release to correct GrokSmear's attacks.
He gave me the first list, and I am waiting on the second with all the
details. I don't think he likes Linux much but he said he
supported disclosing the whole thing and he said he wanted "his stuff"
out of the Linux tree. I am waiting on Chris Sonntag
and Blake to get me the "approved" listing. I will have it probably
Monday. I'll post it then. Darl gave me the prelimiary
listing but we need to post the final. I'll upload the listing to
ftp.kernel.org://pub/linux/kernel/people/jmerkey
and everyone can look it over. This would be good since it will give
folks the ability to
challenge/correct/remove/modify whatever and get SCO off Linux's back.
Darl seemed like a nice enough sort, but he doesn't care much for Linux
or IBM and he's pretty harsh
on IBM. We argued for 30 minutes about SMP support in Linux and I think
he will just let this one go since
I pointed out that Novell had disclosed the Unixware SMP stuff at
Brainshare and he cannot claim
it as trade secrete any longer. He would not budge on RCU, NUMA, JFS, or
XFS however, and he
also said any IBM employee who contributed SMP code in his opinion may
have misappropriated it
and he would claim any contribution from any IBM employee in Linux.
I will post to kernel.org the complete listing.
Jeff
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
>
>> I'd love for you to accept liability for this so we can pass all SCO
>> enquiries on to you.
>>
>> Jon.
>>
>
Jon and LKML,
Also, I will contact Allan Sullivan who represents IBM in the litigation
and let them know I would be happy to
handle this an an advocate of the Linux Community. Alan Sullivan worked
for me on the TRG/Novell lawsuit
and I know him. I will be more than happy to challenge any claims Linux
folks think are bogus from SCO.
Since I am an expert in IP misappropriation (having wormed and squirmed
my way through it for years) I think I could cut
through at lot of SCO's FUD (And you guys FUD as well). I could very
easily get rid of most of thier claims provide
you guys will take out of the kernel:
XFS, JFS, NUMA for certain. You can maintain them as patches for the
time being and let the vendors
who put them in deal with SCO on what belongs to whom.
I think their SMP claims are very weak at present. Novell has stated
publically you can use their patents. I also
consent to Linux using any patents in my name for SMP in Linux IAW
Novell's offer. Any IBM contributed
code should probably be removed and reimplemented by someone else, then
SCO has no claims on it.
I have no idea what you should do about RCU. On this one, wait for the
posting from SCO, then remove the code
and reimplement it cleanroom. The loss of XFS, JFS, and NUMA is not
critical, and people can always get patches.
If you guys do this, then SCO won't be able to interfere with Redhat or
any Linux companies except the ones they
are suing. Darl showed me the undisclosed IP agreements between Novell
and SCO that are not public, and Novell
**IS** going to lose their Copyright case -- the agreements say they
sold them to SCO -- period, and for some
reason Novell failed to make copies of the documents which is why they
don't have them.
Jeff
> Darl seemed like a nice enough sort, but he doesn't care much for Linux
> or IBM and he's pretty harsh
> on IBM. We argued for 30 minutes about SMP support in Linux and I think
> he will just let this one go since
> I pointed out that Novell had disclosed the Unixware SMP stuff at
> Brainshare and he cannot claim
> it as trade secrete any longer. He would not budge on RCU, NUMA, JFS, or
> XFS however, and he
> also said any IBM employee who contributed SMP code in his opinion may
> have misappropriated it
> and he would claim any contribution from any IBM employee in Linux.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you can't go after innocent third parties for
trade secrets or misappropriated intellectual property. That's what we have
copyright and patent for. He can certainly go after the people who actually
stole the trade secrets or misappropriated the intellectual property, but
only copyright and patent provide the public notification requirements that
permit one to sustain claims against innocent third parties (those who use
the stolen/misappropriated property without any knowledge that it was stolen
or misappropriated).
If he's trying to claim that any use subsequent to some point at which we
are supposed to have known that it was stolen or misappropriated, a listing
by category is not anywhere near sufficient, IMO. Even files and line ranges
don't suffice. He would have to provide us with sufficient information to
*verify* the *credibility* of his claim. This has never been done. The
biggest missing piece is *what* it is that has been stolen.
If it's conceptual ideas, like the idea of SMP but not the code, then he's
just totally out of his mind. Only patent provides that type of broad
protection. If it's a 'derived work' type argument (that we stole something
from him and changed it, so it's not literally the same but still his
property), then he's again totally out of his mind. Only copyright provides
that type of protection.
In any event, it's self-defeating, IMO, to act on SCO's claims at this
point. Until they're well enough defined that it's possible for us to
investigate them, we are still innocent third party victims of someone
else's misappropriation. And that's not our problem. Again, IANAL.
One other issue with trying to work with SCO just to prevent future
problems -- SCO has already offered bogus immunities from liability. So I
wouldn't trust any immunity you even think you have. Especially since we
don't know what it is we're supposed to be immune *from*. (Is it copyright?
Is it trade secret? Is it fruit of some kind of poisonous tree because IBM
violated the spirit of some contract none of us are a party to?)
DS
Jon Masters wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:58:54 -0600, Jeff V. Merkey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Jon Masters wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Jeff,
>>>
>>>Could you please digitally sign this mail that you are planning to
>>>send or otherwise provide notorisation that confirms you definately
>>>mean this?
>>>
>>>I'd love for you to accept liability for this so we can pass all SCO
>>>enquiries on to you.
>>>
>>>Jon.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Yes. I can do even better.
>>
>>
>
>Ok. But I need you to sign this using some recognised signature -
>other folks can suggest mechanisms we can use that are legally valid.
>I'm happy to act as a gobetween if we could get you to undertake to
>accept liability for any infringing code left in the kernel after any
>proven SCO demands were to be met (I'm sure other folks can see where
>I'm going with this discussion - let's see what the response is).
>
>
I would agree to this. I will meet with SCO Monday and see if they will
accept this as a proposal. I think
they probably will.
>
>
>>I met with Darl McBride this afternoon
>>
>>
>
>Did you have tea and crumpets? Jam?
>
>
>
They gave me raw carrots (in a plastic bag on Blake's desk) and Baby
Ruth candy bars. We met in
Blake's office (The PR Guy). They had their corporate counsel sitting in
another room and I guess he was
listenting in or something, but he never entered the room. We talked
about the Novell/Bill Mason/Pamela Jones/Groklaw
connections (all of these people are ex Novell employees). I was met at
the front door door by Joan (Darl's
admin) and Blake, then Darl came into the Blakes office. They typed a
letter first roasting GrokLaw then the
SCO general counsel said not to sign it even though Darl wanted him to,
and they said to have Blake put out
some sort of release instead. Then Darl and I talked about all the Linux
code for about an hour or so.
>>He gave me the first list, and I am waiting on the second
>>
>>
>
>Like I said, if you could provide this to me with legally valid,
>documented proof that you'll accept liability for further infringement
>then that would help greatly with this thread.
>
>
>
Yes. I am waiting for them to send it. I called Joan and Darl after I
sent this and Darl had left for the day
and Joan called him on his cell phone and I am supposed to talk to Blake
on Monday.
>>I don't think he likes Linux much
>>
>>
>
>That surprises me. I thought Darl loved Linux more than life itself -
>thanks for the correction.
>
>
>
>>I will have it probably Monday. I'll post it then.
>>
>>
>
>If you mail it to me at: [email protected] along with some contact
>details then I can arrange to have you mail me a signed declaration
>accepting liability.
>
>
>
Agreed. I will do so. I think SCO just wants their stuff our of Linux.
We should accomodate them.
Who wants to use this stuff besides IBM anyway.
>>Darl seemed like a nice enough sort
>>
>>
>
>I'd love to interview the guy, if he were interested.
>
>
>
I could ask him...
>>We argued for 30 minutes about SMP support in Linux and I think
>>he will just let this one go since I pointed out that Novell had
>>disclosed the Unixware SMP stuff at Brainshare and he
>>cannot claim it as trade secrete any longer.
>>
>>
>
>That's interesting. Can you commit to that too in your declaration please?
>
>
Yes.
>>and he would claim any contribution from any IBM employee in Linux.
>>
>>
>
>Were there any restrictions upon when that person was an employee?
>
>
Yes. He said any employee who had access to their source code and who
fell under the license agreements. It was
somewhat nebulous, and form the way he explained it, the agreements with
IBM pretty much covered all employees
everywhere. There was some sort of non-compete clause so I think this
affects everyone.
>
>
>>I will post to kernel.org the complete listing.
>>
>>
>
>Thanks. I look forward to reading that.
>
>
You got it.
Jeff
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:24:36 -0700, David Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote:
> One other issue with trying to work with SCO just to prevent future
> problems -- SCO has already offered bogus immunities from liability. So I
> wouldn't trust any immunity you even think you have. Especially since we
> don't know what it is we're supposed to be immune *from*. (Is it copyright?
> Is it trade secret? Is it fruit of some kind of poisonous tree because IBM
> violated the spirit of some contract none of us are a party to?)
It is not obvious what my motivation for asking for his
indemnification actually was though?
Jon.
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:58:54 -0600, Jeff V. Merkey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
>
> >Jeff,
> >
> >Could you please digitally sign this mail that you are planning to
> >send or otherwise provide notorisation that confirms you definately
> >mean this?
> >
> >I'd love for you to accept liability for this so we can pass all SCO
> >enquiries on to you.
> >
> >Jon.
> Yes. I can do even better.
Ok. But I need you to sign this using some recognised signature -
other folks can suggest mechanisms we can use that are legally valid.
I'm happy to act as a gobetween if we could get you to undertake to
accept liability for any infringing code left in the kernel after any
proven SCO demands were to be met (I'm sure other folks can see where
I'm going with this discussion - let's see what the response is).
> I met with Darl McBride this afternoon
Did you have tea and crumpets? Jam?
> He gave me the first list, and I am waiting on the second
Like I said, if you could provide this to me with legally valid,
documented proof that you'll accept liability for further infringement
then that would help greatly with this thread.
> I don't think he likes Linux much
That surprises me. I thought Darl loved Linux more than life itself -
thanks for the correction.
> I will have it probably Monday. I'll post it then.
If you mail it to me at: [email protected] along with some contact
details then I can arrange to have you mail me a signed declaration
accepting liability.
> Darl seemed like a nice enough sort
I'd love to interview the guy, if he were interested.
> but he doesn't care much for Linux or IBM and he's pretty harsh on IBM.
IBM must be devastated. Seriously. I mean, they're what, the world's
fourth largest bank or something along those lines? Isn't that enough
money to buyout SCO a bazillion times over and still have some pocket
change left over?
> We argued for 30 minutes about SMP support in Linux and I think
> he will just let this one go since I pointed out that Novell had
> disclosed the Unixware SMP stuff at Brainshare and he
> cannot claim it as trade secrete any longer.
That's interesting. Can you commit to that too in your declaration please?
> He would not budge on RCU, NUMA, JFS, or XFS however, and he also said any IBM
> employee who contributed SMP code in his opinion may have misappropriated it
Did he check the dodo_lock_t stuff too?
> and he would claim any contribution from any IBM employee in Linux.
Were there any restrictions upon when that person was an employee?
> I will post to kernel.org the complete listing.
Thanks. I look forward to reading that.
Jon.
El Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:02:48 -0600 "Jeff V. Merkey" <[email protected]>
escribi?:
> Agreed. I will do so. I think SCO just wants their stuff our of Linux.
> We should accomodate them.
> Who wants to use this stuff besides IBM anyway.
This is a problem between IBM and SCO, not between the kernel community
and SCO. So let the justice decide if SCO is right or not, and if SCO
claims are valid IBM probably will take the code out, or fix the problems
in some way.
SCO has failed to provide evidences of their claims (no, people don't believe
you) so there's not point in removing a single line of code until that
happens. A "list of files Darl says you should remove" will be ignored
because that's not a proof. I could claim I own all the code under lib/,
but obviously nobody would listen me if I don't prove something, which is
the main problem SCO seem to have...from the numbers I read from the news
SCO claims don't seem to be harming the linux market either, so who cares?
Redhat/Novell are free to remove/modify whatever code they want, just in
the same way redhat don't enables NTFS support or provide mp3 players by
default.
On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 16:58 -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Yes. I can do even better.
> I met with Darl McBride this afternoon regarding the GrokSmear postings
> (First time I've ever met him) at SCO's request
Jeff,
the world is watching breathlessly your selfless and devotional efforts
to rescue Linux.
I'm answering late because I was requested to meet a couple of people to
report about your invaluable efforts for freedom, justice and the world.
The Pope told me tonight in a private conversation, that he's
considering to beatify you as soon as possible.
The Nobel Peace Prize Committee called for an unscheduled emergency
meeting to replace the already choosen candidate by you and Darl.
The International Law Association want's you to be their honorary member
along with a PhD honoris causae to honour your unmatched ability to
analyse a number of complex lawsuits during a coffee talk at SCO.
Finally I met Santa Claus and he asked me, if it's really a good idea to
bring you more of the Peyote stuff as you asked for on your wish list.
I'm awestruck.
Yours sincerely,
tglx, member of the IPTTA (International Psychodelic Tale Teller
Association)
On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 23:27, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> brian wheeler wrote:
>
> >I'd like to see the list (as well as knowing which kernel version the
> >list comes from) as would many others, I suspect.
Yes, I'm also waiting for it since day 1 of the
> I'll post the entire listing with line numbers of the files SCO
> [alleges] were taken from UNIX by IBM and others.
You didn't understand.
An absolutely necessary information regarding kernel source is the
kernel version number, the tree (-mm, -ac, ...) and/or source URL where
the information (be it a bug report, a kernel oops or false accusations)
is related to.
Simply stating "the linux kernel" has no relevant meaning in any of
these cases.
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
On Saturday 23 October 2004 02:27, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Since I am an expert in IP misappropriation (having wormed and squirmed
> my way through it for years) I think I could cut
> through at lot of SCO's FUD (And you guys FUD as well). I could very
> easily get rid of most of thier claims provide
> you guys will take out of the kernel:
>
> XFS, JFS, NUMA for certain. You can maintain them as patches for the
> time being and let the vendors
> who put them in deal with SCO on what belongs to whom.
No. First SCO must prove in court that these are SCO property and were
"stolen", and then maintainers may consider something like removing
or rewriting code.
Not a day earlier.
--
vda
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> I'll post the entire listing with line numbers of the files SCO
> [alleges] were taken from UNIX by IBM and others.
So where did you put that list up?
--
Matthias Andree
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Also, I will contact Allan Sullivan who represents IBM in the
> litigation and let them know I would be happy to handle this an an
> advocate of the Linux Community.
Forget it.
You will not act as my advocate, and just in case this isn't clear, I
herewith EXPRESSLY FORBID anyone to represent me or my opinions unless
he has a PRIOR, WRITTEN and HAND-SIGNED authorization of mine.
I for sure will not issue one to you, but I may provide IBM with a copy
of this and your mail so they can show to the court you're trying to
deceive the court.
Now stop wasting our time and hop off.
- --
Matthias Andree
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD4DBQFBe42xvmGDOQUufZURAg91AKCeXv9+4MD0qCotLzMTDUjVU/6/jgCSA+a8
D2Q2Kc9aefHSe5G73XKCfg==
=9QGP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----