[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRE: Linux v2.6.9 and GPL Buyout

    > 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?)


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.023 / U:5.408 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site