Since When Is Having A "Casual Attitude" Illegal?

[Promethus]

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.

[MichaeltheGreat]

If you have a casual attitude about whether you should take a shower on any given day, that's your thing.

If you have a casual attitude about randomly aiming and firing a high-powered rifle in an urban area, that's a bit of a problem.

A lot of both civil and criminal issues where you may or may not have intent require some standard such as "ordinary care," "reasonable diligence," or some such wording.

The standard of care in those laws means that taking an "I don't know and I don't care" attitude puts you in violation of the law, but not necessarily to the same degree as if you actually knew the illegality of what you are doing.

[HershOstropoler]

If a "casual attitude" amounts to negligence, you can be liable for damages. If I have the appartment above yours, and a casual attitude towards the bath tube overflowing so that the water runs down to you, you'd want me to pay damages, would you not?

[Urban Ranger]

AFAIK, you cannot patent actual code. You can copyright the code, or patent a protocol or algorithm, but you cannot patent code.

[Nubclear]

BASED IN UTAH

[Q Classic]

i don't like sco.

[Ted Striker]

SCO was the **** before Linux came along and introduced "hacking sh1t together and call it an OS."

I long for the days of SCO.

I miss tight, quality code.

[Urban Ranger]

SCO bought Unixware, but there have always been other sources of Unix. All workstation makers, such as HP, DEC, Sun, etc. wrote their own version.

BTW, hacking is something very, very good according to its MIT tradition. I think the word you are looking for is "kludge."

[Q Classic]

scratch that. i don't like sco because of its recent behavior, not its past quality.

past quality is good, but good companies can go bad. like, say, gateway.

[Cruddy]

Yes, Torvald had a casual attitude to copying code. I can only put this down to the fact he hadn't been sued for doing it before.

You can break the law any day of the week - but that doesn't mean you'll get away with it every day of the week.

I hope he gets his arse spanked for it.

[Q Classic]

aww, i like linus. he's goofy.

besides, he's a lot better than those linux fundies who want to convert everyone. almost bad as those baptists~

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
AFAIK, you cannot patent actual code. You can copyright the code, or patent a protocol or algorithm, but you cannot patent code.

Not the code itself - but code can form part of a larger solution that can be patented.

Copyright lasts longer anyway.

[Urban Ranger]

Personally, so called "software patents" are absurd.