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."

Comments

Re:Does anyone even pay attention to SCO anymore?

[molarmass192]

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.

Re:Will be sooner than later.

[Gleef]

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.

Re:There are two other possible explanations...

[Target Drone]

Does anyone remember the letter that SCO sent out to customers back in the late 1990s

I believe you are talking about this SCO letter and this parody.

Re:three points

[tomhudson]

uh, people, if you've been following this story over the last few months, just a few points:

1. SCO doesn't claim in its' filing that there is any SCO IP in the linux kernel, contrary to what McBride says
2. SCO does claim in its' filing that certain compatability libraries that allow UnixWare binaries to run under linux are their IP.
3. None of the current distros has a copy of any of these libraries.
4. 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.

Re:Is it just me

[Galvatron]

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.