Member Discussions

Posted because of the similarites to continuing conversations concerning a certain mud that begins with M.
It looks to me like the Linux group hasn't been vigilant about where and how they obtain their source code.

Excerpted.....

Linux/Unix ties spelled out - EE Times, June 9 2003

'Analysts who saw the samples of the allegedly stolen code said that the evidence is damaging and that SCO Group has a formidable legal case.'

'If everything SCO showed me today is true, then the Linux community should be very concerned,' said Bill Claybrook, research director for Linux and open-source software at the Aberdeen Group (Boston).'

'Last week, Claybrook and another analyst who had been given an opportunity to see examples of the alleged theft said the blocks of Unix and Linux were strikingly similar. The two blocks of software, they said, contained as many as 80 lines of identical code, along with identical developers' comments. 'One could argue that developers could write exact or very similar code, but the developers' comments in the code are basically your DNA, or fingerprints, for a particular piece of source code,' said Laura DiDio, a senior analyst with the Yankee Group (Boston), who viewed the evidence.'

'It's very unlikely that code and comments could be identical by pure chance,' Claybrook said.'

> The two blocks of software, they said, contained as many
> as 80 lines of identical code, along with identical
> developers' comments

Did they look like this?

	/*
	 * Should be some code here to defend against weird monsters
	 * getting loaded into the pet shop back room.  -- Furey
	 */

Kas.

This is just some suicide attack from SCO on IBM and the linux community, probably supported by m$cr$s$ft who just gave SCO a couple of millions, enough to show profit for the quarter.

Tyche writes:
>It looks to me like the Linux group hasn't been vigilant
>about where and how they obtain their source code.

So SCO would like the court to believe. I don't claim to know enough to have an informed opinion, though the SCO claims I've seen seem a bit lacking in specifics.

An interesting read from the other (not SCO) side:
http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html

Do you know if SCO has identified exactly what they're asserting IP rights over yet?

-Triton

1. SCO hasn't publicly identified the code yet.
   
2. The 'analysts' who have seen the code vary much in their opinions.
   
3. SCO used to publish a Linux flavour AND Linux is open-source:
   
   • Maybe the SCO developers grabbed some ideas?
   
   
4. Some of the items SCO claims Linux may be infringing their copyrights on include ideas originally (provably) developed elsewhere first.
   
5. The most damaging claims towards SCOs case:
   
   • SCO published the Linux code. If any of the infringing code is in those distributions (as might be likely since they withdrew the distro), then either:
     
     • The code is already licensed under the GPL or
       
     • As SCO claims GPL wouldn't apply because they were 'unaware' of the code being in there (as if it were their responsibility to know what's in their code), it would also mean that SCO used Linux outside the GPL -essentially, anyone who contributed to Linux could sue for their copyright infringement.

Those are just some items. In any case, the GPL will remain valid, and as soon as it's known which parts of the Linux code are infringing, they can be removed and replaced. Essentially this'd probably take no more than two months. In the worst case scenario (SCO is right and the judge orders the infingements not to be disclosed), they have to go back to kernel version 2.2.9 (I think.) Well, actually the worst case scenario would leave us using GNU/Hurd.

E

> Well, actually the worst case scenario would leave us using GNU/Hurd.

Stop it! You're scaring me!

You're missing the point that this is looking to be a bit of a "classic" bungle by SCO:

http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.html?i=19569

(fair use)

In a letter to SCO released Wednesday, Novell asserted that it retains Unix patents and copyrights SCO says it owns. Novell demanded that SCO reveal where Unix source code has been copied into Linux, and raised its own threat of legal action to compensate for damage that it says has been done to customers, programmers and companies using Linux.

"To Novell's knowledge, the 1995 agreement governing SCO's purchase of Unix from Novell does not convey to SCO the associated copyrights," Novell Chief Executive Jack Messman said in the letter to SCO Chief Executive Darl McBride. He said that SCO evidently realizes this, because "over the last few months you have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO, requests that Novell has rejected."

Here's some more red meat: :-P

'This shows one of the weaknesses of the open-source movement,' said Mark Radcliffe, a copyright attorney with Gray Cary. 'You're all dependent on trust. Unfortunately, a number of people involved in the process do not have a great degree of respect for intellectual property. It's fine if it's personal, but if you decide to implement that by saying 'I don't give a damn about this intellectual property,' everything that touches it is now screwed.'

Now this is interesting.

Alan Cox (yes our very own beloved author of AberMUD) warns a user about ripping off patented code.

From: Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Subject: Re: large page patch (fwd) (fwd) 
  
View this article only 
Newsgroups: mlist.linux.kernel
Date: 2002-08-11 12:45:49 PST 

On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 16:20, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday 04 August 2002 19:19, Hubertus Franke wrote:
> > 'General Purpose Operating System Support for Multiple Page Sizes'
> > htpp://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/usenix98/full_papers/ganapathy/ganapathy.pdf
> 
> This reference describes roughly what I had in mind for active 
> defragmentation, which depends on reverse mapping.  The main additional
> wrinkle I'd contemplated is introducing a new ZONE_LARGE, and GPF_LARGE,
> which means the caller promises not to pin the allocation unit for long
> periods and does not mind if the underlying physical page changes
> spontaneously.  Defragmenting in this zone is straightforward.

Slight problem. This paper is about a patented SGI method for handling
defragmentation into large pages (6,182,089). They patented it before
the presentation.

They also hold patents on the other stuff that you've recently been
discussing about not keeping seperate rmap structures until there are
more than some value 'n' when they switch from direct to indirect lists
of reverse mappings (6,112,286)

If you are going read and propose things you find on Usenix at least
check what the authors policies on patents are.

Perhaps someone should first of all ask SGI to give the Linux community
permission to use it in a GPL'd operating system ?

Check out Linus's response:

From: Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Subject: Re: large page patch (fwd) (fwd) 
  
View this article only 
Newsgroups: mlist.linux.kernel
Date: 2002-08-11 16:42:30 PST 

On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 
> It goes on in this vein.  I suggest all vm hackers have a close look at
> this.  Yes, it's stupid, but we can't just ignore it.

Actually, we can, and I will.

I do not look up any patents on _principle_, because (a) it's a horrible 
waste of time and (b) I don't want to know. 

The fact is, technical people are better off not looking at patents. If
you don't know what they cover and where they are, you won't be knowingly
infringing on them. If somebody sues you, you change the algorithm or you 
just hire a hit-man to whack the stupid git.

   Linus

Fascinating.

Quoting linus: (from the previous mesasge)
>If somebody sues you, you change the algorithm or you >just hire a hit-man to whack the stupid git.

Well, maybe thats why no one sues medievia :P

I believe Linus' intention was to say that when one develops code, in these times it's pretty much impossible not to be infringing someone's patent. Essentially, if one is not aware that a patent has been infringed upon, the ramifications should, in general, be less severe.

This is the important part:
The fact is, technical people are better off not looking at patents. If you don't know what they cover and where they are, you won't be knowingly infringing on them. If somebody sues you, you change the algorithm--


Besides, when someone patents 'making any kind of business via any imaginable means via a computer network of any kind', I think it's only fair to trounce on it..

E

No I think you missed the important part.

Engineer: But Mr. Gates this compression algorithm is patented by STAC. We can't just ignore this.
Bill Gates: Actually, we can, and I will.

Actually, Ero hit the nail on the head when you consider the clarification further in the thread here.

From the message:
'I'm saying that technical people shouldn't care. I certainly don't. The
people who _should_ care are patent attourneys etc, since they actually
get paid for it, and can better judge the matter anyway.

Everybody in the whole software industry knows that any non-trivial
program (and probably most trivial programs too, for that matter) will
infringe on _some_ patent. Ask anybody. It's apparently an accepted fact,
or at least a saying that I've heard too many times.

I just don't care. Clearly, if all significant programs infringe on
something, the issue is no longer 'do we infringe', but 'is it an issue'?

The USPTO has a reputation for not checking prior art when issuing software patents, or issuing patents on overly broad 'inventions'. What I saw Linus saying is that it does a developer no good to waste (coding) time trying to interpret the legalese and/or scope of patents - it's something that is best left up to the lawyers.

Also, your Microsoft example is flawed :)
Engineer: 'Umm, this algorithm is patented.'
Bill Gates(turning toward his legal department with a grin): 'I don't think we have a problem with that.'

-Neros

(Comment added by Neros on Sun Jun 29 9:52:29 2003)

Balmer(rushing in a few minutes later): "HEY DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT, WE ALREADY OWNED THAT COMPANY AND ALL THEIR PATENTS! THAT'S WHAT WE CALL INNOVATION!"
(note:In caps because I've never seen him speak in a conversational tone)

Also remember that most of the software patents are USPTO-issued. They have absolutely 'zippo*' legal validity anywhere else.

E

*'Zippo' and any affiliated words or parodies thereof, including but not limited to any words that share any of the same or different letters either at the same length or not are probably the copyright of either IBM, Microsoft or SCO, and if not, would correctly be called GNU/Zippo. I am not claiming any intellectual, unintellectual or otherwise property or copyright or -left on above phrase, and acknowledge I am using it with reverence at whoever first had the stroke of genious to think of it, and without the prior written permission, in the vain hope they won't take away the English language.

Also remember that most of the software patents are USPTO-issued. They have absolutely 'zippo*' legal validity anywhere else.

Maybe. As pointed out, Linux could just ignore the US business and commercial sector.

Imagine the following exchange overheard on the Hypothetical Mud Gods mailing list:


Coder: Hey Imp this code here is copyrighted Diku code. We can't just ignore the Diku license.
Implementor: Actually, we can, and I will. If the Diku group sues us, or somebody finds out and flames us, we just rewrite it or hire a hit-man to whack the stupid gits.


The reason I brought it up is indeed mud related. I've come to the conclusion that who is doing the stealing and who they are stealing from is more important than the act itself to many in the mud community. Many not all. I dub it the Robin Hood syndrome.

Food for thought. (knee-jerk responses are welcome too) ;-)


[*] BTW, Zippo is a trademark. It has also entered the lexicon of common usage much like Kleenex, which means the restrictions on its use are very much weakened.

Your example is flawed. Linus's comment was in regards to patents, not to copyrights. Patents cover ideas, not implementations.

I'm quite aware of that. So why do you think the comments should be taken any differently when applied to patents than if they were applied to copyrights?

So my earlier examples are flawed:
Example 1:
Cox is wrong. Linus is right.
Example 2:
MS Engineer is right. Gates is wrong.
Example 3:
Coder is right. Implementor is wrong.

Or is Robin Hood always right? :-)

What I saw Linus saying is that it does a developer no good to waste (coding) time trying to interpret the legalese and/or scope of patents - it's something that is best left up to the lawyers.

Is Linus also (by implication) suggesting that it's a waste of time for developers to read source code licenses and trying to intepret the legalese and scope of copyrights? :-)

> I'm quite aware of that. So why do you think the comments
> should be taken any differently when applied to patents than
> if they were applied to copyrights?

As mentioned elsewhere, it's virtually impossible to create a nontrivial piece of software without potentially treading on someone's patent. Meanwhile, it is beyond easy to create a nontrivial piece of software without treading on copyright.[1]

What does this mean? It means that patents, a means to promote innovation, instead have the potential to stifle innovation, should all software patent owners aggressively pursue those patents.[2] This immediately gives the impression that the software patent system is fundamentally flawed.

Additionally, software patents go by largely unchecked for prior art, obviousness[3], etc., which means most are probably non-patents anyway. Again, this means that the patent system is flawed because it means that innovative developers (small companies often have to be innovative to survive) must hire expensive patent attourneys to assess both the possibility of, and the cost of infringing on those patents, draining funds from the otherwise innovative development.

Of course, I can say this all and maintain the moral high ground because I live in a country where infringing upon US patents is not illegal ;)

[4]

Kas.

[1] Unless your initials are "M.K", apparently.
[2] In most cases, big-company patents are protection from other big companies. They will "trade rights" to patents so that they don't mutually get bogged down in costly lawsuits.
[3] Surely this is also what Linus is saying: by not knowing of the patents one would be infringing, one can, in one's own defense, use the "obviousness" argument.
[4] I have never used the word "innovation" so much in my life, and I probably never shall again. At least I didn't babble on about "synergy" and other stuff like that.

As mentioned elsewhere, it's virtually impossible to create a nontrivial piece of software without potentially treading on someone's patent. Meanwhile, it is beyond easy to create a nontrivial piece of software without treading on copyright.

However Linus suggests that a patented algorithm can just be rewritten. I would disagree and say that it's not easy (e.g Unisys's GIF software, IBM's Quicksort). You suggest it's easy to create a work that doesn't tread on copyrights. I completely agree. One wonders then about the oft-repeated contention here that Diku cannot be rewritten? I'm not of course talking about the lazy prevarications of someone that claims to have done it and really hasn't, but instead the claims that it cannot be done. Of course maybe noone is claiming that, and it's just my imagination. (I may have even said it on several occasions).

Additionally, software patents go by largely unchecked for prior art, obviousness[3], etc., which means most are probably non-patents anyway.

But copyrights are not checked at all! And copyright protection can extend to 95 years after the authors death while patents have a much much shorter duration. Don't copyrights then also discourage 'innovation' in software specifically (as opposed to pure literature) far more than patents? Let's back up on that. Is not expression more limited by a programming language than by a language like English or German? Meaning that the possible implementations of functions are far more constrained than possible implemetations of a story. Does that limit trivial ease in which unique implementations can be created and balance out the non-trivial task of developing or reworking a unique idea (patent)?

Surely this is also what Linus is saying: by not knowing of the patents one would be infringing, one can, in one's own defense, use the 'obviousness' argument.

Yet when Redhat kernel engineer Alan Cox pointed out that they were directly working from a usenix paper that described well-known SGI patents, the statement was we can and will ignore it. Sorry but you have to completely ignore the specific context of those statements to not see that is legally prima facie evidence of a smoking gun that shoots plausible deniability in the head.

I'd really like to hear a spirited defense of Alan Cox here. I don't think I'm going to get it.

Tyche writes:
>Meaning that the possible implementations of functions are
>far more constrained than possible implemetations of a
>story. Does that limit trivial ease in which unique
>implementations can be created and balance out the non-
>trivial task of developing or reworking a unique idea
>(patent)?

Think about how many different ways you can write a "Hello World" program, even just within C/C++. Extend this to a non-trivial application.

Granted, a quicksort is basically a quicksort, but that doesn't mean that the code necessarily looks the same in a copyright sense when this well-known algorithm is applied in two different programs (different data structures, different types of loop/control structures, recursive vs non-recursive, etc).

As programming tools get more sophisticated, what you're describing may become more of an issue (a sufficiently powerful template language would pretty much reduce an algorithm like quicksort to its bare essentials).

Where there is one obvious way to do something, I would argue that it's not copyrightable (because 'inventing' it probably can't be viewed as a creative effort).

-Triton

Is Linus also (by implication) suggesting that it's a waste of time for developers to read source code licenses and trying to intepret the legalese and scope of copyrights? :-)

I'm confused. His statement refers to patents not copyright. Though I imagine Linus is informed enough to know the distinction of the two. :)

From my observations, the open source community is very respectful of copyright and licenses. It's pretty hard to 'steal' code when there is an obligation to provide the code in source form (depending on the license). On the other hand, don't you agree that it's much easier to hide stolen code in a closed source application?

Back to patents... Should the mud community be concerned by this patent application? We don't want to infringe on their hard earned invention do we?

-Neros
(C) 2003. All Rights Reserved. Neros is a Trademark of the Neros Corporation, used with permission. Patent Pending. For sale and use in Japan only. May not be exported to other forums...

redhat ewwww, alan cox is my hero.

But some patents in the software business have gotten out of hand imho. Imagine someone patenting mprogs, and sues every mud having them. When the patent expires it patents mprogs using if checks. When that patent expires it patents mprogs able to store data. Thus blocking any serious development for 11 years and 10 months. (Asuming a patent lasts 4 years and the new patent is kicked in the month the old patent expires)

Not surprisingly a mud hosted in a country that has different patent laws would add mprogs. And alot of muds would ignore the patent for the obvious reason that it'd be a rediculous patent.

Ofcourse true innovations should be protected by patent laws.

I don't know. You're intentionally fudging the intention of a statement so I won't touch that argument, it's futile.

Answer me, though, if it seems right to you that I can, at this day and age, go to the USPTO and patent iterating over an array using an incrementable index (when suffieciently obfuscating the phrasing), and anyone wanting to contest that must pay heavy legal fees (that I don't have to pay them if I lose) to do so?

Is it right that is someone, somewhere, invents a method of doing something in a program, they can patent it, so that anyone else, even if they got to that exact same conclusion without even knowing of the other person's work, can not use the fruits of their own hard work?

E

(Comment added by Ero on Fri Jul 4 13:41:39 2003)

P.S. A real example.

Does it seem right to you that a coalition of rich businessmen cunningly get the patent to e-business (I cannot remember the exact wording but this is how they rephrased it in the court of law.) This patent was acquired in 1998 or so (tuppence if you can remember whem for example Amazon started their business.) Now, using this patent they are suing companies for infringing on it -not Amazon or Ebay, of course, but little mom-n-pop stores to whom this may have been a great breakthrough. They probably don't even want to go after the giants because they know they'd be killed in court.

Ero writes:
>Is it right that is someone, somewhere, invents a method
>of doing something in a program, they can patent it, so
>that anyone else, even if they got to that exact same
>conclusion without even knowing of the other person's
>work, can not use the fruits of their own hard work?

Just to play devils advocate:

Is it right that someone, somewhere, invents a method of doign something in an industrial process, they can patent it, so that anyone else, even if they got to that exact same conclusion without even knowning of the other person's work, can not use the fruits of their own hard work?

Unless you're advocating the total abolition of the patent system (are you?), the real question becomes "Why should software be special?" There are things that make it "feel" different- it's new ways of flipping bits instead of something tangible. But, both industrial and software patents boil down to someone having a really great idea that can save money/time or open new possibilities. Society seems to support the idea of rewarding such people for their contributions through the right to collect royalties on the use of that idea.

I think that you have to look at stupid and abuse-of-process patents as a separate issue. That kind of problem happens with any legal system you put into place.

-Triton

>Is it right that someone, somewhere, invents a method of doign something in an industrial process, they can patent it, so that anyone else, even if they got to that exact same conclusion without even knowning of the other person's work, can not use the fruits of their own hard work?

No.

Is it right that someone, somewhere, invents the cure for cancer as a part of their laboratory processes, and their employer can patent the formula, so that any other company, even if they got to that exact same conclusion without even knowing of the other person's work, can not use the fruits of their own hard work? Furthermore, is it right for the patent-holding company now charge whatever they want for this medication?

E

(Comment added by Ero on Fri Jul 4 18:29:37 2003)

Hm, let's amend this a little bit. I, personally, think that a patent system is entirely unnecessary -certainly, my general economical views might differ from most peoples', but it is, in fact, completely against the spirit of capitalism, too, since it's an artificial means of limiting competition. Just wanted to add that there before the commie-pinko stuff starts .)