Tweet
I.B.M.'s Opponent in Suit Criticizes Linux Advocate
By STEVE LOHR
In a new court document, the SCO Group criticizes Linus Torvalds, the guardian of the freely shared Linux operating system.
SCO's amended suit against I.B.M., filed late Monday, contends that Mr. Torvalds, who has overseen the development of Linux, appears to have a casual attitude toward intellectual property rights. Linux is distributed free and improved upon by a far-flung network of developers.
SCO, based in Lindon, Utah, sued I.B.M. in March, contending that the computer company improperly copied Unix code into Linux.
SCO bought the source code and license rights to Unix in 1995. I.B.M. denies the allegations and counters that SCO is vastly overstating its contract rights.
"As I.B.M. executives know," the filing states, "a significant flaw of Linux is the inability and/or unwillingness of the Linux process manager, Linus Torvalds, to identify the intellectual property origins of contributed source code that comes in from those many different software developers."
"If source code is copied from protected Unix code," the SCO document adds, "there is no way for Linus Torvalds to identify that fact."
Mr. Torvalds developed the software engine, or kernal, of Linux as a university student in Finland in 1991. Today, Mr. Torvalds lives in Silicon Valley and he still oversees the Linux kernal, though with many contributions from others.
SCO executives assert there is a "don't ask, don't tell" mentality toward intellectual property that pervades the Linux programming culture. As an example, they point to an e-mail message exchange last August on the Linux mailing list. One programmer said there was a patent matter that "we can't just ignore."
Mr. Torvalds replied, "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," Mr. Torvalds wrote in the e-mail message last August.
In an e-mail interview earlier this month, Mr. Torvalds explained that his was a candid view in the murky, complex realm of software patents these days.
"Hey, one of the advantages of not personally being involved in any of the commercial Linux players is that I can be honest," Mr. Torvalds wrote. "In fact, openness pretty much requires it — there is no corporate speak here. Ask any lawyer in a tech company (off the record, so that he can be honest too), and he'll tell you that engineers should absolutely not try to look up other people's patents. It's not their job, and you don't want them tainted."
Moreover, Mr. Torvalds made the case that open-source software projects like Linux — where code is shared and openly published for all to see — provide more visibility and accountability than the more closed realm of traditional propriety software, where source code is a closely guarded trade secret. So, he added, if there are intellectual property transgressions, they are easier to track.
"Me, I prefer the open approach," Mr. Torvalds explained. "Does it guarantee that everybody is honest? No. But it, fundamentally, makes it much more likely that people are honest, and the transparency in the process also means that if dishonesty happens, you can go back and see what went on."
Indeed, because Linux code is published publicly, it is easier to track what I.B.M. contributed to the operating system. But the issue, of course, is whether SCO's Unix license covered any of the code I.B.M. put into Linux.
Should the SCO suit turn up any offending code, the open nature of Linux — and the many programmers working on it — will ensure a quick solution, according to open- source software experts.
By STEVE LOHR
In a new court document, the SCO Group criticizes Linus Torvalds, the guardian of the freely shared Linux operating system.
SCO's amended suit against I.B.M., filed late Monday, contends that Mr. Torvalds, who has overseen the development of Linux, appears to have a casual attitude toward intellectual property rights. Linux is distributed free and improved upon by a far-flung network of developers.
SCO, based in Lindon, Utah, sued I.B.M. in March, contending that the computer company improperly copied Unix code into Linux.
SCO bought the source code and license rights to Unix in 1995. I.B.M. denies the allegations and counters that SCO is vastly overstating its contract rights.
"As I.B.M. executives know," the filing states, "a significant flaw of Linux is the inability and/or unwillingness of the Linux process manager, Linus Torvalds, to identify the intellectual property origins of contributed source code that comes in from those many different software developers."
"If source code is copied from protected Unix code," the SCO document adds, "there is no way for Linus Torvalds to identify that fact."
Mr. Torvalds developed the software engine, or kernal, of Linux as a university student in Finland in 1991. Today, Mr. Torvalds lives in Silicon Valley and he still oversees the Linux kernal, though with many contributions from others.
SCO executives assert there is a "don't ask, don't tell" mentality toward intellectual property that pervades the Linux programming culture. As an example, they point to an e-mail message exchange last August on the Linux mailing list. One programmer said there was a patent matter that "we can't just ignore."
Mr. Torvalds replied, "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," Mr. Torvalds wrote in the e-mail message last August.
In an e-mail interview earlier this month, Mr. Torvalds explained that his was a candid view in the murky, complex realm of software patents these days.
"Hey, one of the advantages of not personally being involved in any of the commercial Linux players is that I can be honest," Mr. Torvalds wrote. "In fact, openness pretty much requires it — there is no corporate speak here. Ask any lawyer in a tech company (off the record, so that he can be honest too), and he'll tell you that engineers should absolutely not try to look up other people's patents. It's not their job, and you don't want them tainted."
Moreover, Mr. Torvalds made the case that open-source software projects like Linux — where code is shared and openly published for all to see — provide more visibility and accountability than the more closed realm of traditional propriety software, where source code is a closely guarded trade secret. So, he added, if there are intellectual property transgressions, they are easier to track.
"Me, I prefer the open approach," Mr. Torvalds explained. "Does it guarantee that everybody is honest? No. But it, fundamentally, makes it much more likely that people are honest, and the transparency in the process also means that if dishonesty happens, you can go back and see what went on."
Indeed, because Linux code is published publicly, it is easier to track what I.B.M. contributed to the operating system. But the issue, of course, is whether SCO's Unix license covered any of the code I.B.M. put into Linux.
Should the SCO suit turn up any offending code, the open nature of Linux — and the many programmers working on it — will ensure a quick solution, according to open- source software experts.
Comment