Slashdot Mirror
SCO Claims Kernel Contains UnixWare Code
ergo98 writes "SCO has increased the intensity of the lawsuit with IBM by claiming to hold indisputable proof that copyrighted UnixWare code found its way into Linux, violating the rules of both camps. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen: SCO refuses to divulge the code in question, however they promise to reveal it in court shortly."
Exactly, the fact they aren't prepared to even present a single example of this makes me very suspicious. It would be magnitudes easier for SCO devels to steal code from the Linux kernel (even unintentionally) than for the Linux kernel to steal code from SCO. Anyhow, as some have already mentioned, who's to say that the code lines in question weren't already in the public domain prior to them even being in SCO? I'm doubling-down on IBM if they want to play a chicken-and-the-egg fight in this suit.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
No, because they've specifically stated they're not referring to official (kernel.org) kernel code.
rmadmin asks:
Can someone spread some light on how they'd prove how old their code is?
In this day and age, there's no such thing as proof. There are ways (both low and high tech) to falsify almost any piece of evidence. Thankfully, the court system is already set up to handle this.
From what I understand, in most trials there are issues of fact (he did this to them at this time) and issue of law (and because of that he should be convicted of this charge). Early in the process, SCO is supposed to file documents asserting (among other things) the facts as they understand them. IBM is supposed to reply with (among other things) the facts as they understand them, including pointing out where the agree (eg. IBM stipulates that the plaintiff is, in fact, called the Santa Cruz Organization, Inc), and where they disagree (eg. IBM at no point transmitted any part of foo.c to persons outside the company).
If they disagree on significant factual issues (and don't settle, and IBM doesn't eat SCO to make the headache go away), then the case will eventually end up in a trial by jury. The jury's main job is to listen to both sides evidence regarding the facts of the case, and decide whose evidence is more convincing.
If there's no dispute on the facts, juries can be dispensed with, and a judge can just decide how the law applies. You get fun things like Summary Judgements as in the Grokster case if everyone's on the same page as far as facts go.
If SCO produces a falsified source document from 1998 with GPL code pasted in, IBM can rebut with a witness from IBM showing that in 1998 they received a different document, including the SCO (Novell?) branded CD and the matching checksums from the printed and dated documentation. They could also add a witness from a third company showing that in 1998 they received a different document too. I don't think a jury will have a hard time deciding relative merits of such evidence.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, the above should not be considered to be legal advice. Some states may permit Judges to determine issues of fact and not require a Jury for that under some circumstances.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
I believe you are talking about this SCO letter and this parody.
- SCO doesn't claim in its' filing that there is any SCO IP in the linux kernel, contrary to what McBride says
- SCO does claim in its' filing that certain compatability libraries that allow UnixWare binaries to run under linux are their IP.
- None of the current distros has a copy of any of these libraries.
- McBride should read his own companys' suit before giving interviews, but then he would be open to charges of "pump and dump" vis his SCO stock (not that ignorance is a defence, but
...)
This whole thing is so fucked up that it can only be a stock-market scam.Folk... don't click the AC's link to google... it isn't really a link to google, but some stupid 'click this link and make me a bunch of points in some stupid game' link.
Troll.
to qoute: Given the loose nature of linux coding, I'm not surprised at all that someone with access to SCO code would contribute it to Linux.
I dont think you know a damn thing about "Linux" coding. what you seem confused about is weather a program is "Linux", the answer is NO. the only thing that is and has been "Linux" is the Kernel. And if you know that i would like you to explain to me how its "loose" in nature ? their is only ONE person who can "officially" approve code for use in "THE" kernel, and thats Linus. You can code a module, or even modify the hell out of the kernel, but thats not "Linux", "Linux" can only be found from one place: kernel.org, everything else is a modifyied version of it, and therefor the individual vendors are responsible for it. (hence redhat has an issue if a redhat kernel has SCO code in it, whereas the vanilla kernel wont.)
and i would challenge you to find ANY OS who only has one guy in charge of approving code/patches to the kernel.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Actually, Caldera has approximately tripled since announcing this lawsuit. The one day loss was a blip. That being said, the only reason it's gone up is that otherwise, the company had no prospects at all. This at least is a shot in the dark.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Actually, if they really plan on going to court, they're going to have to reveal their evidence to IBM long before it actually makes it to the courtroom.
See, there's this little thing called "discovery", where both parties in a court action are entitled to request any information from the other party even slightly pertinent to the case. And the other side must comply unless they can get a judge to agree that it's not relevant.