The SCO questionmark
13. SCO went after IBM, now they seem to go after Linux, while they hinted that Mac OS X also uses their Unix IP. This does raise an eyebrow, as MacOSX is partly based on FreeBSD, 4.4BSD and Mach3... How does this situation affect the FreeBSD Project? Is FreeBSD using "clean" code, or are some remaining SysV code is still part of your project? Additionally, FreeBSD ships with Linux emulation libraries. Does this part of the Linux code in FreeBSD includes any claimed SCO IP?
It's also interesting to note that over the last few years SCO has
been attempting to release more and more source code under open
licenses. I was involved in an attempt to release sar a few years
back, but nobody in the BSD communities was interested enough. I get
the impression that new management has moved in without understanding
the obligations and commitments that SCO has made in the past.
Note also that SCO's claims that IBM is stealing their SMP technology
are ridiculous. SCO never had any useful SMP technology, and the
implementation in Linux both predates IBM's involvement, and is also
completely different from the SCO implementation.
There is some code in FreeBSD which was derived from System V. It was
released specifically for this purpose, and there had never been any
dispute about it. The "BSD Wars" of 1992 to 1994 were about code
imported from Research UNIX, not System V. SCO (then called Caldera)
released all Research UNIX code under a BSD style license in January
2002, so there is no way they could complain about this.
M. Warner Losh : The code was *NOT* derived from System V, but rather from Unix 6th and 7th edition, as well as 32V. Only the copyrights were similar to
those used in System V source files. The code in question was merely
blessed by USL and acknowledges as originating there by the Regents. Read here.
The settlement restricts further use and distribution of
certain files in the Second Networking Release and requires
that certain files in 4.4 BSD-Lite include a USL copyright
notice. In addition to providing several enhancements, the
new 4.4 BSD-Lite Release will replace most of the restricted
files and incorporates all the agreed-upon modifications and
notices. Thus, 4.4 BSD-Lite will not require a license from
nor payment of royalties to USL. The University strongly
recommends that 4.4 BSD-Lite be substituted for Net2.
In any event, those files with USL copyrights on them have specific
permission to be distributed by the Regents of the University of
California to settle thse lawsuits, with an additional agreement that
Novel (and its successors) would not sue anybody basing systems on
4.4lite.
FreeBSD 2.0 base a new port from 4.4lite. It contains no code from
the net2 releases that isn't in the 4.4 lite release. FreeBSD 1.x did
include code that was subject to that lawsuit, but since the FreeBSD
has not made that code available for years, I'd think that we'd be
safe from any IP claims.
Greg 'groggy' Lehey: I do have some concern about the way in which Caldera released the
software. The current litigation against IBM so completely
contradicts the release last year that I can only assume that the
people involved don't know about each other. We (in this case the
UNIX Heritage Society) have asked SCO to put up
information about the release on own web site, but so far they have
not done so. A copy of the original is here. You may quote this URL if you wish.
[Linux emulation libraries threat] I don't believe so, but as I say, SCO's complaint was very vague.
FreeBSD simply uses existing Linux libraries for the emulator, so I
can't see any reason why the FreeBSD project should be held
responsible for the content.
M. Warner Losh : SCO's claims are based on bad action by IBM. They make a copyright
claim against IBM that is approximately: IBM derived AIX from System
V. IBM took parts of AIX and put them into Linux. Therefore, since
AIX is derived from System V, they put our IP into Linux.
The comments that they made about the Mac OS X sources are from a
position of ignorance. All files in the Mac OS or FreeBSD source
trees that have USL copyrights are specifically covered under an
agreement to settle the 1992 lawsuit between the University of
California Regents and Novel (the folks that purchased USL while the
lawsuit was going on). That agreement specifically stated that Novel,
and its successors, would not sue anybody who based their systems on
4.4lite. FreeBSD is based on 4.4lite, and is therefore immunized
against such legal action based on copyright claims. UCB, for their
part, removed certain files, rewrote others and added the copyright
notices to still others. FreeBSD has no code that infringes upon the
SCO group's intellectual property.
There never was any System V code in any BSD. Ever. The IP claims
that USL made its 1992 suit were based on the inclusion of sixth and
seventh editions and 32V. While these were the forerunners to System
V and System III code bases, they are not specifically System V or
System III. Furthermore, SCO released, under its ancient unix
program, all sources that predated System III and System V to be
freely distributed under a BSD-like license. These specifically
included 6th edition, 7th edition and 32V.
IBM has never, to my knowledge, contributed significant work to the
FreeBSD project. Since SCO's IP claims appear to be based in
copyright law, FreeBSD is safe from claims via this vector.
Linux's libraries are completely free of SCO intellectual property as
well. They are based on glibc, which has been written from scratch
over the past 15 years or so. Other libraries are similarly written
from scratch, or are based on code bases with well known lineages (for
example, the X11 libraries). Therefore, FreeBSD is safe on this
front.
Were we to include ibcs shared libraries that are necessary to run
ibcs emulation, we might be volnerable to an ordinary copyright
claim. However, we do not, so we are safe from that aspect of the
claims that have been reported in the press.
Some, not connected with SCO as far as I can tell, have alledged that
SCO is making patent claims against unix for its Unix IP intellectual
property. Since most of the key concepts on Unix were invented before
software patents, and also many years ago, the patents have either
expired, been placed into the public domain, or were never issued. It
is unlikely that SCO could prevail on claims in this area as well. A
careful reading of SCO's statements show that they refer only to Unix
IP, and copyright law to justify their suit against IBM. Even if that
weren't the case, FreeBSD is safe here as well, as far as we can tell.
Finally, the FreeBSD core team has not been contacted by SCO
representives directly. We have seen press reports, but they are not
sufficiently specific for us to know what, exactly, would be alledged
should SCO contact us. In addition, SCO's own web site has only
talked about copyrighted code being transferred from IBM's AIX into
Linux. Since there is no code that orginated in AIX in FreeBSD, we
can only assume that we're safe from such claims. Our belief is that
we're very safe from these actions, for the reasons I've outlined
above. However, in the absense of specific allegations against us, we
cannot, with certainty, say one way or the other. Table of contents
Greg 'groggy' Lehey: Technically, not at all. It's not clear what SCO's motives are, but I consider them completely unfounded in all points. The Linux source
code is available to any user, and SCO themselves ship Linux source
code, so it's difficult to understand how SCO can make these claims
without pointing to a single instance to substantiate the claims.
