
OpenLava under IBM attack - BuuQu9hu
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/openlava-users/z4V4oF1tfdY
======
DannyBee
I dunno. I've known IBM's primary copyright counsel (Terry Ilardi) for many
years, and he's very friendly to open source (and very smart).

I suspect there is more to this story than meets the eye.

Reading the reddit, etc, it's really unclear what the history is. I read the
DMCA request, which seems straightfoward, and the counternotice, which reads
like someone who probably shoudl have consulted a lawyer (it makes legal
claims about their non-disclosure/etc obligations) :P

Even looking at wikipedia, it looks ... complicated
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_LSF](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_LSF))

Given a counternotice was filed, it's also not clear what is getting shutdown
and why (IE lack of details), etc.

Lot of panic, little details.

~~~
xenadu02
That doesn't square with Shawn Starr's statement. He worked at Platform
Computing before the IBM acquisition. Part of their code was packaged for
Linux and relicensed as GPLv2 in partnership with RedHat. All OpenLava work as
been based on that GPL'd code and developed in the open.

Unless you're claiming the Platform Computing partnership with RedHat was
unauthorized and somehow concluded without management approval it would appear
IBM doesn't have a leg to stand on. The history of OpenLAVA used to be
available for everyone to see, though thanks to Ilardi's team that is no
longer true.

~~~
DannyBee
"That doesn't square with Shawn Starr's statement." It actually does, because
there is nothing anywhere, that gives enough detail to say anything really.

There are a lot of claims, but not a lot of facts. Shawn says he was
authorized to package something under the GPLv2. The rest is just opinion. For
example, you have no idea what any of the IP agreements involved said.

Seriously. IBM is generally too meticulous, and not stupid enough, to be in a
situation where they have no leg to stand on.

They were the ones who went through _hundreds of thousands of pages of
documents_ to prove SCO didn't own the copyright.

I think it's a bit naive to, based on a statement from one guy who did some
packaging work, that IBM has no leg to stand on.

In fact, a bit of Googling turns up a counterpoint:
[http://www.law360.com/articles/850910/ibm-sues-startup-
for-a...](http://www.law360.com/articles/850910/ibm-sues-startup-for-
allegedly-stealing-software-code)

Note: IBM claims some IBMers stole code when they left IBM, and then illegally
incorporated it later into the open source project. Not that the original code
was not GPLv2'd validly.

Note also: David, the person making the claim here, works/worked (it's a bit
hard to tell if he is still employed there) for the company IBM is suing.

~~~
paradite
This is also consistent with the reddit comment here:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/5j3mn2/ibm_is_trying...](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/5j3mn2/ibm_is_trying_to_bully_the_openlava_project_a/dbdgaul/)

~~~
DannyBee
That's because i wrote that comment :)

------
sandGorgon
This was the most interesting comment on that thread

    
    
       I need to step in here, 
    
       Considering *I* was the one who packaged Lava, the original sources are here:

[https://spstarr.fedorapeople.org/ocs-
rhhpc/trunk/src/kits/la...](https://spstarr.fedorapeople.org/ocs-
rhhpc/trunk/src/kits/lava/)

    
    
       IBM has no right to claim nor any DMCA claim that can revoke this as we released this long before IBM bought the company and they bought the company afterf I had left Platform Computing.
    
       IBM has no standing to DMCA this source code if you forked it from my original RPMs we released.
    
       Thanks,
    
       Shawn

~~~
JeremyHoward
> What I also want to say is, if code added to OpenLava was proprietary from
> LSF then IBM has every right to sue. We only released authorized GPLv2 code
> and IBM from what the lawsuit says acknowledges this part. This code in
> question is legal and free to fork use and develop.

------
disgusting_guy
The court case documents are worth looking at before forming any opinions:
[https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/nysd/463894/](https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/nysd/463894/)
(specifically
[https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/nysd/463894/1-0.h...](https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/nysd/463894/1-0.html))
-- it alleges that former LSF engineers joined teraproc after leaving IBM and
took source code with them, as well as claiming teraproc went after IBM
clients offering their managed cluster software for less money than LSF.

David Bigagli also says in the first post in that thread:

    
    
      IBM does not have a technical answer to OpenLava and to the benefit its users have. 
      They cannot articulate why their software is better than OpenLava for the money they charge for it. 
      IBM fears OpenLava because is does provide a better functionality than their own software and 
      that's why it can only reply with a lawsuit by hiring: 
      Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
    

Sounds like there might be slightly more to this than is outlined in comments.

------
shawn-butler
From the timeline, I think Github is in breach of DMCA provisions. The project
seemed to provide a proper, valid counter-notice[0].

Unless Github has been served with an an actual judicial injunction, then they
should have restored the content after 10 days[1].

[0]:
[https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2016/2016-11-07-I...](https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2016/2016-11-07-IBM-
counternotice.md)

[1]: [https://help.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-
dmca-...](https://help.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-counter-
notice/)

~~~
dsl
They _can_ restore the content, the provider is not obligated to.

~~~
kriro
Eagerly awaiting a response from the GH team. Assuming all the DMCA stuff was
handled correctly they need to restore ASAP. How they handle this is (or
should imo) be a very good yardstick for deciding if you want to host your
FLOSS project with them, apart from the technical reasons.

~~~
icebraining
_Assuming all the DMCA stuff was handled correctly they need to restore ASAP._

They need to restore, but not ASAP, they must wait _at least_ ten days,
according to 17 U.S. Code § 512 (g) (2) (C):
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512)

------
ChuckMcM
Background on this : [https://www.nextplatform.com/2015/06/05/an-old-platform-
find...](https://www.nextplatform.com/2015/06/05/an-old-platform-finds-new-
life-outside-ibm-walls/)

~~~
DannyBee
Here's where IBM sued Teraproc for what they claim is incorporating stolen
code into OpenLava; [http://www.law360.com/articles/850910/ibm-sues-startup-
for-a...](http://www.law360.com/articles/850910/ibm-sues-startup-for-
allegedly-stealing-software-code)

(AFAICT, they make no claim that openlava was not GPLv2'd validly, only that
people later illegally put stolen IBM-owned code into it)

------
BuuQu9hu
Reddit:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/5j3mn2/ibm_is_trying...](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/5j3mn2/ibm_is_trying_to_bully_the_openlava_project_a/)

------
finchisko
Never heard about OpenLava. But among the bad things, the good thing is that
project just get promotion for free.

------
dewiz
I couldn't find a link to the actual repo, here's the DMCA takedown
[https://github.com/openlava/openlava](https://github.com/openlava/openlava)

------
tiplus
The thing that worries me the most is that there is no public mirror of
(important) OSS Github projects outside of the US, is there? It is all
centralized in one place under one jurisdiction.

~~~
paradite
I'm not too concerned about that since git is intrinsically a decentralized
model.

Even if github is gone, your local repos are still there and there's very
little friction to migrate or push source code to other github alternatives.

~~~
adrianN
Only if you use github just as a host for your repository. If you use all the
other features it provides, migrating is much more difficult.

~~~
paradite
I have no experience in this but a quick Google search suggests that it is
trivial to migrate GitHub issues to GitLab or JIRA:

[https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/workflow/importing/import_project...](https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/workflow/importing/import_projects_from_github.html)

[https://confluence.atlassian.com/adminjiraserver071/importin...](https://confluence.atlassian.com/adminjiraserver071/importing-
data-from-github-802592903.html)

~~~
speeder
I rely right now on GitLab for political reasons.

How much in US jurisdiction are they? I do not live in USA and don't want to
have anything with that country, specially don't want its long arm of IP law
anywhere near me.

~~~
daxelrod
GitLab Inc is a US corporation:
[https://about.gitlab.com/2015/07/01/Operating-as-GitLab-
Inc/](https://about.gitlab.com/2015/07/01/Operating-as-GitLab-Inc/)

You might consider installing your own instance of GitLab hosted in a country
that you prefer.

------
debacle
This stands out:

> IBM does not have a technical answer to OpenLava and to the benefit its
> users have.

> They cannot articulate why their software is better than OpenLava for the
> money they

> charge for it. IBM fears OpenLava because is does provide a better
> functionality than

> their own software and that's why it can only reply with a lawsuit by
> hiring:

> Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

As an emotional, rather than logical appeal. It doesn't matter how great
OpenLava is if they have violated IBM's copyrights.

------
future1979
Naive question. The platform computing acquisition was fairly large IIRC. I
keep seeing workload scheduling pop up in different places. Is this really a
large market? I thought scheduling made sense in grid computing/HPC systems.
Having trouble seeing the economic value here. Any comments on the
market/business side would help this old hacker.

------
teach
Can we get this changed to a less salacious title? The original thread is
called "OpenLava under IBM attack".

~~~
dewiz
I don't like either the current title "trying to bully". Is IBM bullying or
not ?

~~~
Lazare
Based on the little that is known, no.

There is an ongoing lawsuit over whether some commits to the project contained
proprietary IBM code. IBM's claim is plausible, and the counterclaim seems
awfully vague.

For example, from the founder:

> I have developed most of the OpenLava code and I have reviewed all
> contributions. All this development was done without access to any IBM code.
> All IBM claims regarding the source code are false and fabricated.

If you didn't author every line of code, but in at least some cases only
reviewed the contributions, then you have no way of knowing whether IBM's
claims are false or fabricated; the only way he'd be able to recognise IBM
code is if he had access to that code to cross-check, which he also claims not
to have.

It's not a very...convincing denial, is it?

~~~
rbrtdrmpc1
if IBM can statically analyze the OSS software, why the hell the OSS side
can't statically analyze the proprietary software to check the claims?
(despite the difficulty to reverse engineer the code, if its binary)

