Slashdot Mirror
Latest SCO News
SCO has discovered an amendment to their contract with Novell that may clarify that they did purchase the copyright to System V after all. Heise has an interview in German with a former employee. Cringely says SCO probably was responsible for any duplicated code itself, with a theory that is quite plausible. One non-programmer corporate analyst has looked at SCO's alleged evidence. And SCO has another press conference today.
it only makes SCO a more valuable acquisition for IBM. Buy 'em and be done with it.
When are these clowns going to figure out what their story is? Coming out of a back room filing cabinet with an amendment that Novell doesn't even have on file sounds like a pretty bizarre circumstance. If this is the piece of evidence upon which their claim stands, then why didn't they roll this out in the first place?
I can't recall a company performing such exquisite hara-kiri in public view before...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Or someone who doesn't know the difference between patent and copyright?
Not having the benefit of seeing the code I'll have to assumme these comments are fairly overwhelming evidence wise.
If you knowingly copy code, into a product that can be viewed by potentially millions, wouldn't you at least try to make it not resemble the original work.
Yes, it is easy to catch the lazy cheaters, but if put some effort in it then it should be a little more difficult then running grep.
I'm sure there are bound to be similarities here and there, coders no doubt ran into the same problems working on the same platform, but apparently these grievances were enough to goto court over.
Obviously, we can surmise they understand their work enough to copy kernel code, so we know the individuals were at least someone intelligent.
So, having in mind how code theft works, it doesn't make sense for something as obvious as a comment to stick around unless someone wanted to get caught.
Just my 1/100th of the american dollar.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
"Apparently the most telling evidence is that parts of the SCO code and Linux code include identical annotations made by developers when they wrote the programs, says DiDio, who compares such notes to the signature or fingerprint of a developer's work."
That would be pretty interesting. If the comments are worded the same, that could be pretty convicing evidence. I hope the general public gets to see the evidence soon, so we can judge by ourselves and don't have to rely on some Yankee Group analyst.
This would give them a case against IBM, but that still doesn't cover the fact that SCO had an agreement with Lindows to use code. I don't think they have commented on the Lindows issue.
:p
Anyways, I think we have been over this 100 times now.
Every Super Villan uses Linux.
Big fucking deal. What's a non-programmer going to say about code? That's like going to a farmer and asking him how to fly an airplane, or a pilot, and asking him when the best time is to plant the corn.
From the article:
So Novell agrees that the information in this ammendment appears to be legit, but they can't verify that this ammendment actually occurred because they don't have a copy of it themselves?
Could it be that SCO happened to "create" this ammendment and then convienently "find it in a filing cabinet" ?
In C++, friends can touch each others private parts.
namely many interuptions
SCO are like North Korea at the moment, exploit the opportunity to create a headache for other people to be bought out and shut up. They're playing the double or nothing game.
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
The moral of this story is to never comment your code.
I was not touched there by an angel.
Of course, we all know that manipulation of stock prices could not possibly be a motivation behind this fiasco.
You can patent a method for doing something. Just like you can patent a physical invention, you can patent a software invention.
If I develop a new engine with twice the power and four times the mileage of the internal combustion engine, I can patent it. If I develop (for example) a virtual machine implementation (like VMWare) that runs with only a 5% performance degradation, I should be able to patent the methods I used to achieve that, as well.
Granted some (most) software patents are ridiculous (like the Amazon 1-Click patent - that's akin to patenting the doorknob), but some aren't.
This space intentionally left blank.
Maybe we know what Linus really meant when he said:
"See, you not only have to be a good coder to create a system like Linux, you have to be a sneaky bastard too."
Giga information group rings a bell with me too, old MS yay and Apple/Linux/everything else nay sayers :)
Snipped from the article regarding the analyst who's seen the code:
"Apparently the most telling evidence is that parts of the SCO code and Linux code include identical annotations made by developers when they wrote the programs"
Now I was very much of the impression that this was smoke and mirrors from SCO . . . but if comments in the code are the same, then something's not right somewhere
P
Wow, what an indepth analysis information week reported on. Some "business anaylst" type saying "oh yeah, look at the comments in the code, the are IDENTICAL"
/* open a file */
A comment saying:
is NOT a basis for a lawsuit right??? IANAL... so who knows. If it is, I am in DEEP trouble.
I dunno, I can't wait till the day comes, in the future, when we can all sit around and say "hey remember the SCO days? Boy, wasn't that a trip?"
Ugh, oh well.
sad robot making broken music
-_-
We don't need the play-by-play for this anymore than we needed it for the OJ Simpson trial...
IBM throws the pitch.
SCO swings... pop fly! He broke the bat!
Novell jumps for the catch... ERROR! He dropped it!
SCO makes it to first.. but wait! Is that cork in hs bat?
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
So if SCO made contributions to the Linux kernel, and those contributions are now in the official distribution, is there a record somewhere of SCO (or their employees) contributing said code? I am pretty much in the dark as to how closely Linux contributions are tracked.
My understanding is that the GNU/FSF folks are pretty meticulous about obtaining releases and documenting contributors, and I expect that they do that for precisely this sort of situation. I am just not aware of whether or not Linus and company do the same for the Linux kernel
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
I called my broker TD Waterhouse this morning and they said they had "no shares available to short". I've never shorted a stock before - what should I do? Do I need to get an accct somewhere else?
The teleconference is at 12:00PM (EST). Be sure to join in!
.
Toll Free within North America: 1-800-946-0722
International: 719-457-2647
Password to enter call: 746737
More info here
This time, I won't miss it!
All Hail Discordia. Hail Eris. Fnord.
Has anyone looked to see what code (if any) SCO, its subsidiaries, or any employees have contributed to the Linux kernel? For all we know they are attempting to sue based on code that they inserted... perhaps something Caldera did.
If the code that SCO found is the same code found in Unix, then they at least have a case.
It would be interesting if a Caldera employee gave Linux a "poison pill."
No, actually not.
If you are looking for duplicate code, then its a pretty non-programmer task. Its kinda like "compare column A" and "locate instances of column A within column B".
It's like asking a non-farmer to find the corn field on the farm. Or a non-pilot where the pilot would sit.
Scroll down -->
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:lGZmsKmjdowJ: www.yankeegroup.com/public/events/conferences/ITF2 003/components/IntegrationTechForumSpeakers.pdf+La ura+DiDio&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
how can you patent 1s and 0s
On the other hand, how can you pattent a bunch of atoms?
Don't take me wrong, I agree with you, but not on the basis of 1s and 0s.
If SCO had this amendment (which Novell apparently doesn't atm) then WHY WERE THEY ASKING NOVELL FOR COPYRIGHT RECENTLY?
Novel and SCO both seem to have forgoten about it, and/or something screwy is going on.
I for will remove SCO where I find it and to never purchase it again whether it is at my current or future position. My livelyhood revolves (partially) around the *nix platforms. They go too far and the only way to make a difference in this business is to not buy their products or renew any contracts. The only the we have for Beer is Beer itself.
Of course, this is also a problem with US copyright law. Copyrights are so nebulous and easily transferred that it's almost impossible for end-users to keep track of whose IP they may be using. Registration with the US copyright office should be a requirement, not an option.
After hovering between $5.00 and $6.00 dollars for most of the past week, SCO's stock has jumped up to a {ahem} "healthy" $9.29.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you are looking for duplicate code, then its a pretty non-programmer task. Its kinda like "compare column A" and "locate instances of column A within column B
That's true if the point is to say, "Yep, I definately see some of the same stuff."
I thought that the point was to have some sort of idea if it was actually SCO stuff.
A Non-Programmer will have absolutely no idea about that. About as useful as doing a string search.
http://use.perl.org
harakiri or, more apropriately, sepukku is the Japanese word for the ritual suicide of a warrior (samurai) that finds itself dishonored.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Hm. Even according to SCO they have the "copyrights necessary to exercise". This is as open to interpretation as it can get and even more some... Hmm... IANAL but if I understand correctly the interpretation is still in Novell's hands. If SCO objects to what Novell allows it can sue them as well.
Anyway I am happy Heise finally printed in a proper big publication that SCO is not Unix. It is not certified (I am getting thongue muscle cramps from repeating this and RSI from tying it again and again).
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
goto /* Fuck Dijkstra */
is one of my fav's. But I think i saw it in the Linux Kernel first, before copying it just about everywhere I go the chance.
A small thing, (a small mind...)
What if SCO took some code from Linux and inserted into its own code? Even if there are some similarities between SCO's code and Linux's code how can SCO prove that it was stolen from SCO and not vice versa?
Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
The NDA only applies if you DISAGREE with SCO's position.
Big f***ing deal. What's a non-programmer going to say about code? That's like going to a farmer and asking him how to fly an airplane, or a pilot, and asking him when the best time is to plant the corn.
I'd say it's more like asking an airplane pilot if two cows look the same.
Even more like asking a farmer if two planes look the same. They're designed to perform the same function (fly) with basically the same equipment (wings) so there will be some similarities and a lot of the differences will be in the technical details (the camber of the wing and the hydraulics that move the control surfaces) that an observer not fluent in airplane design might miss.
Granted, if the comments in question all contain the programmer's initials (something not uncommon where I work), then that would be pretty damning.
Name calling is for small children.
No, you need a programmer to tell the difference between what are standard, widely-used algorithms, e.g., linked-lists, and what aren't.
Could it be that SCO happened to "create" this ammendment and then convienently "find it in a filing cabinet" ?
Sure. And when found to be a falsified document then Novell would sue the everliving crap out of them. Fraud, forgery, harm to business, and probably a dozen or so other civil and criminal charges would be filed.
Even I don't think SCO is that stupid.
In any case, unless the ammendment was filed with the Copyright office it makes very little difference -- all SCO could do is sue Linux companies and users to cease further infringement, not monetary damages. They couldn't even recoup legal costs for the cases.
It's almost time to start short selling SCO's stock.
Read my sig if you like, but I'll never see yours, thanks to Discussions, Viewing, Disable sigs...
One non-programmer corporate analyst
Would that be something like a "Lawyer" or someone possibly "Not Qualified" to examine the evidence? That's like saying since I like red then anything red must be mine because I say I like red and I pay you to agree that everything red is mine. To only have a MS bankrolled bully account. I would so just go pick on companies for a couple million dollars, hell they're still on the defensive. It wasn't until novell stood up and said "Hey dimwit, what the hell are you talking about?" that this started to get interesting.
Personally I couldn't give a rats ass what SCO says, until someone comes out with an IOTA of evidence that says "STOLEN" or "BROKEN CONTRACT" I will not care. Most people who are viewing this SCO case that are in the "know" are holding the same belief's.
My problem as mentioned here before is that the people not in the "know", 99.4% of the rest of the world, keep seeing linux as a possible lawsuit. In level of fear people fear the following, public speaking, death, and then lawsuits, so anything potentially law suitish in the corperate world might just as well be a platter of ebola.
It is the SCwhO mudslinging that is starting to get no my nerves and bashing a great open source project for the benifit of their pocketbook. You guys have a shit Unix system and a shit distribution and now you're trying to take it out on the community because you suck, bastards.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Ok, its at the end when cringley changes topics to AOL, but I love this quote:
I'm right there with you man. Where do I get the T-shirt?
Well sir, [hooks thumbs in overall straps and rocks back on heels] ... that's a mighty fine lookin' heffer you got there.
The only things I can think of are drivers written by a third party for the SCO kernel and also used as a basis for a driver in the Linux kernel. Eg. rio driver /etc/magic, /etc/services files would be pretty simular across most UNIXes...
Also the
and thank God for Shogun: Total War
Laws are for people with no friends.
The analyst said the code was indentical with identical comments. Why would one have to be a programmer to identify that?
All SCO has shown is that there are two sets of code that are the same (and presumably one of them comes from UnixWare and the other from the Linux kernel, though the NDA makes it impossible to know even that much for sure).
Denial, yes. But if they really have a case, why do they obscure the facts?
Yes, but you dont need a programmer just to find the bits. That can be done later by a non-programmer. And also, lets talk about linked-lists. If you have a block of code over here that uses linked lists, and a block over here that uses linked lists, just because it involves linked lists doesn't mean that its not copied. I am sure this guy had a threshold for how many lines needed to be identitical before flagging it.
In essence, this guy doesnt have to know anything about code. He's doing the same thing anyone revieing articles or books for uncited quoting or plagarism is doing. Looking for a pattern of identical or suspicously similiar code. A single instance here or there of similiarity isn't suspicous.
This looks like a second opportunity to short if you couldn't (or didn't short enough) on the first spike. That is what I did.
Even if they owned the copyright at some point, by their redistribution of the resulting code under GPL notices they have effectively donated it, unless they want to be the first challengers in court to the GPL (and getting IBM on the other side, because the FSF is not enough...)
Good point. Why are you asking for something you already have? Especially if its the very thing you are going to court over?
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
Yeah, comments being duplicated sounds damning but without a copy to work with I don't know how I'm going to check this against the BSD or other sources.
<shrug>
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
I should be able to patent the methods I used to achieve that, as well.
IF (and ONLY if) you (and for this discussion, "you" is any developer, not avalys in particular) actually innovated to do so. Changing from one well-known algorithm or data structure to another well-known one with better average or worst-case performance IS NOT INNOVATION. It's what you (hopefully) learned to do in school.
Yes, if you really, TRULY, come up with some new algorithm that no-one thought of before, yes, you should be *allowed* to patent it.
But there are two very good reasons why you should think long and hard before you do:
1) Chances are, you *didn't* invent it -- you probably just independently arrived at a solution that HAS been done before. So, there's a considerable risk that it's *already* been patented somewhere else (e.g. IBM or Microsoft), or that there's prior art that's clearly NOT patent-encumbered.
2) More importantly to software engineering as a field of practice, a great many true innovators make it a point NOT to protect their innovation, but instead to share it with their collegues, with students, with anyone who's interested.
Yes, that may be bad for business for the short term, but as a field that's still very research oriented, it's better for everyone in the long term.
Imagine where we'd be today if Dijkstra (holy crap, I spelled that right on the first try?) had patented his shortest-path algorithm? If various process-scheduling algorithms were patented, instead of published in textbooks?
If you only care about the here and now and your back pocket, sure, patent a method -- if you can truly convince yourself that you've innovated, and were the FIRST to do so.
But if you're interested in furthering the field, or if you know full well that what you did is neat but not truly new, *innovative*, and *non-obvious* (even after the fact), consider sharing, and letting others build on your work, instead.
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
My first impression isn't that the claim is credible but rather that they stole some linux code verbatium. If so then is all of Unix under GPL now? Seriously how do we know where the code in question came from? How can we be sure that they're not just saying it's theirs and infact it didn't come directly from Linux.
Consider errno.h (or its various "component" (i.e. "#include"-ed files).
Most non-programmers comparing instances of this file from different sources would think "hey, these are almost exact copies!".
On the other hand, most programmers would be quite aware that they almost have to be exact copies: you need the "#define", you need the error name, and you need the error value, and they need to be the same. You could even imagine the comments being the same, or at least very similar. Most programmers would understand that these values are needed for compliance with published POSIX-type standards. Non-programmers would not.
Come to think of it, maybe it's something silly like this that SCO is complaining about.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That there was no followup makes it easier for me to believe anyone who claims this document is a fabrication.
Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
How many BeOS and AmigaDOS experts does the world need?
freebsd is free for any use, yes, but you must obey the copyright. linux developers haven't always followed the rules
if linux has gotten code in a shady manner before, what's going to prevent it from happening again?
vodka, straight up, thank you!
Sorry, but that sort of thinking is pretty bull-shit. For example, if I'm writing code to set up the x86 cpu to go from "real mode" to "protected mode", my codes' comments are going to be pretty much the same as anyone else's, because there's only one way to do this.
Ditto for a lot of other well-documented operations.
Hell, if my coding style is the same as someone else's and my variable-naming convention is the same as theirs, I would hope that, in many cases, our code would be near-identical when doing code that needs to function in a previously-defined, standard, specific, well-documented way.
Laura DiDio, senior analyst of Yankee Group Application Infrastructure and Software Platforms. Fancy title. Can mean pretty much anything.
It just smacks too much of the infamous buy out of MITS by Pertec - Pertec beleived they were buying MITS Basic (or Micro-Soft Basic) at the time, but after the dust settled in the courtroom, no such luck. (Damn)
This is the biggest grenade that the supervillian can toss into the Unix camp, utter confusion over ownership of code, all carefully crafted to scare Unix customers back into the 'safe haven' of Msft.
Read the end of this for example.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
With so many conflicting opinions about this whole issue I don't know what to think anymore. But I do know one thing, I am going to continue to support Open Source software 100% and nothing will stop me as I would rather move to another country than give up contributing to Open Source software.
Those who trade freedom for security will lose both, and deserve neither" -- Ben Franklin
There is a simple solution to this whole SCO situation.
Why doesn't SCO just sue itself for unspecified damages for distributing its own code under the GPL in violation of its own licensing terms. Then settle out of court for undisclosed sum.
Seems like everybody wins under this scenario. Well, except maybe SCO.
-Peter
With the offending code in the Linux kernel made public, can't the kernel maintainers go back through the versioning history and see who sent in the patch and committed it? I would think they chould tell if a given block of code came from many small patches and morphed over time, or one big patch.
The "guy"'s name is Laura. And, no, you can tell she doesn't know very much about coding, styles, etc by reading the actual article.
I haven't posted yet about this story because I couldn't figure out exactly what I wanted to say. I just knew that it made me sick every time I saw SCO vs. Linux or any time I thought about the lawsuit(s) involved.
I think it's a deeper, more disturbed form of the same sensation that I get when we discuss intellectual property laws on Slashdot.
What it all comes down to is this: I don't care if there are six or ten minor chunks of SCO code in Linux. I don't care where the Linux code came from. SCO is not good for humanity; SCO is a product. Linux, on the other hand, is good for humanity on a fundamental level.
It brings computing services to people across the world who otherwise couldn't afford it or who otherwise would be sending money to multi-billionaire Bill Gates instead of buying food. Thanks to Linux, these people can spend their money on real things that they need, while still participating in the global exchange of ideas and perhaps getting a toe-hold in the "modern" western world that.
Linux provides nonprofits like churches and community centers the ability to provide 'net access and document services to underpriveleged communities who otherwise wouldn't have access to these things or would have to depend on meager government funding to buy licenses (again while lining the pockets of the rich).
Linux provides some of the best hands-on education to young aspiring programmers and scientists that can be found anywhere, and it does so using best-of-breed tools, and at no charge.
Linux has fostered a community of international understanding between research organizations, governments, communities and even small groups of programmers and individuals. There are no borders in Linux, only individuals working together, smiling and one another and breaking barrier after barrier together.
Some look at this list and say "hmm... makes national borders irrelevent... helps the poor and not the rich... does not pay for labor in currency, but in the rewards of the product itself... is not strongly managed from the top down by anyone with fiscal authority, but is instead contributed to by a vast egalitarian labor pool..." and then they call Linux a form of communism and say that it needs to be eliminated, or at least that it is unethical to support Linux instead of for-profit companies.
Are these people insane? Linux is a boon to humanity. Anyone who can't see that is blind. If Linux is communism, it's time to take another look at communism, because it looks to me like a beautiful thing.
And in the meantime, I don't care where the code of Linux comes from. The fact is, SCO's never done thing one to help the human race, here they are busily exploiting it, rich and poor, young and old a like, just like so many other companies out there greedily trying to harm all our lives on the basis of "IP", and now they seem to think they can kill Linux off in the interest of making a buck, and that this would be a good, "moral" thing... and many mainstream analysts seem to make the basic assumption that if Linux did "steal" SCO's code, then this is indeed the case. Well, I disagree. Linux helps people at no charge. SCO makes a profit by exploiting people.
It's just wrong. It's backward. It makes me sick. I don't care where Linux's code comes from. SCO is no Linux and never will be, and if we end up with a nice, profitable SCO and a damaged (or defunct) Linux movement, I think the world will be a much worse place, not a much better one, no matter how much people harp about the "right" thing to do or the "rights" of copyright holders.
I almost feel like some kind of neo-flower-child. Screw the establishment. Help the people. If that's communism or if that's bad for business, so fscking what?
For what its worth, here is a babelfished version of the German interview. Keep in mind it was translated from babel.altavista.com so your milage may vary....
***************
SCO: Cut out and stick?
Meanwhile the argument led by SCO around Linux and the code transfer of Unix read themselves like the film script to a IT variant of Dallas or Denver. Daily new companies and expert announce themselves to word. Some, about Novell , have serious arguments, others like Lindows spread hot air. Both IBM and SCO, that both contractors in the billion-complaint, have their technicians to the silence thundered, in the same way Novell. There even the lawyers concerned with the SCO contract refer to a statement prohibition of the law department.
More deeply there are some levels Germurmel. Thus express the developers under the hand their surprise, taken part in the project Monterey, which by the components for Linux, supplied by SCO at IBM, could be at all interesting: Doubt gives it on the side of the suppliers. Secured realizations to the CUT & paste deplored by SCO are missing, until the code is revealed.
Now Christoph unexpectedly becomes light TIG an in demand figure. The German software developer worked at Caldera (so the earlier name of SCO) as pack Maintainer and was part of the team, which worried about adjustments and nose-fixed for the Linux Kernel. Later it developed the Linux ABI further project , which makes an implementing of unmodified Unix programs, approximately for UnixWare and open servers for written software possible, under Linux for Caldera. In the meantime light TIG is busy with SGI.
While light TIG worked at Caldera, he commentated the relationship of SCO Unixware and Linux. Light TIG explained at that time that copying from Unix code to Linux and vice were unpractical versa: "the Interna of the Kernel is so differently that one would need a thick layer compatibility adhesive, thus [ copies ] functions. And that will promptly with the next kernel review rausgeschmissen to become."
Now Hellwigs comment is handed . Reason of enough to ask it to this case.
heise on-line: Do they stand to this comment?
Light TIG : Naturally.
heise on-line: SCO compared the condition of Linux with a bicycle, until IBM came and the project a car became.
Light TIG : The comparison may sound beautiful for humans without any specialized knowledge, has however with the reality to nothing at all to do purely. Linux was before the commitment of IBM, before which participation of large enterprises in the development, for which most areas of application will be substantially more useful than it UnixWare or open servers ever. I see the participation of large enterprises in the Linux development very positive. I do not consider it however meaningful to place the desires of these enterprises with the development of the official Linux releases into the foreground. Straight large enterprises bend to be satisfied with technical solutions which are far suboptimal, to neglect or areas of application which do not offer sufficient sales chances.
heise on-line: Do the actions of SCO have success?
Light TIG : I doubt that SCO in the legal sense with this action will have success. On the other hand SCO is already now successful in the sense that the share quotation rose and one received other financial syringes (for example of the Microsoft Deal).
As long as SCO does not possess the rights at SVR4, SCO IBM can sue Secrets "only for publishing" trade. The proof will be very difficult, more may not not say I here. And which is continuously forgotten in the debate: Contrary to SCO I do not speak here explicitly _ _ of Unix. Unix a registered trade mark of the OpenGroup, which certified operating system be used may, is official generally linguistic usage for each UNIX95/98 it however simply as over term is used, and never, in order to designate SCOs of operating systems open servers and Unixware. Contrary to AIX both are by the way not UNIX98-zertifiziert.
FTA:
Even if SCO has a claim here (which is a big if), is there no such thing as the "good faith" argument anymore? Wouldn't I (and millions of other individuals and companies) be able to say that we used linux on the basis that, to our own knowledge and the testimony of the developers, all the source code for linux was contributed legally under the GNU GPL? Why would I be held "liable" for using something I believed to be perfectly legal?
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
I haven't done an detailed search, but on a whim I grepped for SCO and Caldera in arch/i386/kernel.
smpboot.c has statement saying that development was supported by Caldera.
microcode.c was started by tigran@sco.com in 2000. According to the comments, a few months later his address became tigran@veritas.com, and still appears to be the primary maintainer.
Could this be what they showed the analyst?
Novell's claims are merely "an attempt to make itself relevant and to look like they're still a top-tier player," Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio told NewsFactor. She said that SCO's claim of owning the full copyright to Unix has merit.
The decision by famed attorney David Boise to represent SCO in its lawsuit against IBM lends credence to its case, according to DiDio. "He doesn't have to take this on for publicity's sake," she pointed out. "It's safe to say he wouldn't be touching this thing if he didn't think it had merit." Furthermore, "the fact that Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT - news) immediately signed up and licensed [Unix] from SCO" also adds credibility, she said. Microsoft's licensing agreement with SCO could also be seen as "a shot across IBM's bow," DiDio added.
Wow, she sure sounds unbiased. It sounds to me like she had already made up her fucking mind before she had even seen the so-called 'proof'
-- Jim
Actually there are a number of farmers who know how to fly planes because they crop dust their own fields.
Those who trade freedom for security will lose both, and deserve neither" -- Ben Franklin
pretty funny if you ask me. but then again, I guess you didn't ask me, else I would have mod points today :-P
Former U.S. President Lyndon Johnson used to boast that he had never cast an unsold vote. He saw that as testament to his skill at finding someone who wanted him to vote the "right way", and getting a concession for it, which is how U.S. politics works. It is possible for analysts to work that way too. Aberdeen has been very good at finding customers for their careful analyses, while Gartner appears to control expenses by letting the customers do the writing. The analysts with a shred of dignity left have recused themselves already because they recognized that the NDA stacks the cards enough to prevent any chance of anyone publishing a fair analysis.
The crash has been hard on analysts. (You can see that in the periodic, contradictory swings by Gartner as IBM and Microsoft alternately gain control of their corporate voice.) Yankee, here, seems to be demonstrating mainly that they're hungry.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
It's not wise to get in a bind over the comments of one analyst. Remember, analysts of this same sort said .com's would continue their rise. It may very well be in this analyst's interest to assert similarities in commenting style. Interestingly enough, there was no talk in the article about actual code being reproduced, only comments.
SCO's claim was that source code had been cut directly from "their" Unix code and added to Linux. This does not preclude someone from working on both projects. All this analyst's statements show is that the same people may have worked on both systems. This doesn't show a wholesale heist of intellectual property.
SCO may be taking a page from the M$ playbook by intentially pushing "evidence from experts" to the public. Will this analysts comments be mailed to Linux users? It wouldn't surprise me in the least. If SCO can drive FUD to the hearts of corporate types, they can all but force an IBM buyout.
Specialists vs. Non-specialists. Here's a good example - people look at my 2 dogs. A lot of people go - "2 St-Bernards - wow - I've never seen a black St-Bernard before". People who know the difference between a St-Bernard and a Newfoundland see two different, but similar, breeds.
I said it before, there was a widespread assumption here that Linux could not possibly contain copied code, while in fact, plagiarism in the real world (see under New York Times) suggests that is highly likely pirated code might have made its way to Linux. How it made it there and what are the implications I do not know.
I think having the same comments its pretty damning in spite of the "in denial" messages in this thread. Of course, the rest of the SCO claims that the *only* way for linux to become enterprise stable is just the lawyer taking out of his a55.
But, let's indulge in some grand scale "conspiracy theory" style paranoia:
Who's to say SCO didn't just copy/paste somebody's else's comments into some old source code and "discover" the similarities themselves?
I gotta believe that you'd need a whole lot more similarities than just code commentary to prove an IP violation. I surely do not envy the lawyer(s) trying to piece this crap together...
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Given this, how much do you want to bet it was a SCO employee from the days when SCO was hacking linux too?
That would be pretty embarassing in court, and with Linux's extensive, expansive paper trail, SCO is taking a BIG bet here.
Even if SCO have a case, it only affects the AIX branch that IBM developed.
I miss my rubber keyboard.(Homepage)
I understand the NDA is required for viewing SCO's *evidence*, but is the source for their Unix distribution available? If so, can someone else compare Linux to it?
Laura DiDio, senior analyst of Yankee Group Application Infrastructure and Software Platforms.
Fancy title. Can mean pretty much anything.
Not really - what it means is "not smart enough to be a consultant"
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't do or teach, consult.
SCO!
*cups hand over balls*
in copyrighted code I produced in 1974. While examining the Linux kernel I found a clear copyright violation. Here is the excerpt from the Linux kernel code:
"i"
Please add me to your suit and send me my share. Thank you.
Say both codes include "int a;". Well, to a non-programmer, they stole the code. To a programmer, nope, it's what a lot of people use.
Same if the comments are "//Opens file". Now, basically everyone uses that, but to a non programmer, it's stolen. The list goes on and on...
I've been noticing the byzantine complexity of the licensing agreements, and I think it bears a striking resemblance to the medieval European feudal system.
Granted, we use the terms IP, patent and copyright instead of fealty, vassal and liege lord, but the end effect seems similar. Conflicted loyalties and unresolved questions pile atop one another until the whole mess comes crashing down on everyone's heads.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
The question is: which linux kernel shows similarities with their Unix? SCO's own patched kernel, a RedHat kernel, a kernel from kernel.org? I didn't see anyone asking that question. Would it be a breach of the NDA if DiDio would disclose this information? I very much doubt so - SCO must clarify this. They can't just go and say: here is our unix source code, here the linux kernel source.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Cropdusting, you moron! Farmers and Pilots are the same people.
I learned this during an unfortunate Southwest flight when all 200 of us rode a 737 while dropping pesticides on a bean field.
I'll walk next time. With a mask on.
Seems that someone should trawl the linux kernel CVS logs and produce 2 files - one with IBM contribs and one with SCO/Caldera contribs. We then use the analysts who view the code as oracles - give them both files and tell us which file they see the violating code in - FileA or FileB.
Man, I wish I had mod points for ya - that was insightful and thought-provoking. Good show.
-72
-Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
You also have to punch in a password code:
746737
This is great stuff for tech geeks, but publications that your boss is reading such as this article over as business week are what your boss(you know, the guy who pays your salary) are reading. I would say this whole debacle is having quite the intended effect.
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
My thought on all this is that that won't be known until such time as the code in question is actually released. At which point the Linux kernel admins will look at their records, hunt down the people who submitted those patches, and *ask them*, and probably call them as witnesses.
At this point things will probably get interesting, as there are open, public records that show bit by bit in pretty close detail every step of the development of the linux kernel, and who submitted what, and when, and why it was accepted-- and these records have been publicly available on the internet for years, and archives exist in various places, which would make these records impossible to change after the fact. SCO, meanwhile, if they have records at all of when and by who code was added to their materials, has no particular proof that those records are real and not faked (either by their lawyers or a malicious employee years previous trying to pass off open source code as his own work). Just a thought..
Of course had SCO simply begun all this by publicly saying "hey, these parts of the linux kernel are copied from code we own the copyright to", the linux kernel admins would have just about certainly simply checked out those sections of code and the people who wrote them, and, if there was an apparent infringement, removed and replaced the offending sections. I'm really really hoping that this fact will not escape the judge at trial.
(I'm assuming the linux kernel people wouldn't do something stupid like allow an anonymous patch into the kernel.)
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
1. Start a commercial software project
2. Paste some Linux code into it
3. Sue
4.
5. Profit!
If this is new code that was added to SCO's codebase within the past few years...
How do we know that SCO didn't copy from Linux?
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
"The fact that these appear to be transposed from Unix System V into Linux I find to be very damaging."
% grep -rw "fucking" unix/ | wc -l
234232342
% grep -rw "fucking" linux/ | wc -l
342323233
Not unless someone at SCO is anxious to do some serious jail-time.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Last time I tried to join one of their conference (it was too late), a woman asked me what was the code. Maybe you have to type it in when you call before the conference, dunno. ;)
And it was in my original post anyway.
All Hail Discordia. Hail Eris. Fnord.
a person is qualified.
I have seens CPAs who are much better programmers than MS in Computer Science degree holders.
For most people Degrees are a decoration they don't signify the level of competence in that area. Usually, job time experience more than adequately covers what was not covered in your college years.
For the record, I hold a MS in Comp. Science. Does that make me qualified ?
How can we be sure that SCO did not copy Linux code into the SCO codebase?
Microsoft buys SCO. They drag this out for all eteranity with there billion dollar lawyers.
So can anyone put all this into perspective, assuming that it is correct that there is some similarity of code?
So far all I've seen written in response is axe-grinding of some sort or another. I'm even sympathetic to it but it's boring as hell. What I'd really like to know are the possible ramifications of some code being similar.
Is it minor code that only is important if someone is trying to sue in order to save their own company from obsolescence? Is it major code? Is there no code? What if it was major code? How much? I assume that this doesn't refer to the kernel but other parts. It would be nice to get some perspective on it. This of course assumes that SCO has been consistent enough for anyone to be able to put into perspective.
I know :-) but I hope the average reader will get the gist of my argument.
Correction: A day without SCO is like a day without having your underwear set on fire! :-)
This sig intentionally left blank.
I'm not sure... Would this be a dupe? Same back-and-fourth, with absolutely no substance, as the last 500 freaking /. stories about SCO.
Excuse me, I have to visit my prefs to exclude Caldera stories. I just wish there was a Cringly and NY Times category as well...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I'll assume nuthing. Given Information Week "evidence", I'm more likely to believe the opposite.
Let's have a look at some other opinions from Information Week's "primary beat reporter for Microsoft coverage", John Foley. Here he tries to see things through Bill Gates eyes, a very silly thing to do when dealing with a liar. He ends up thinking that better things are comming again. Typical, with M$ the best is always yet to come. The rest of Foley's opinions and articles are the kind of no statement made blither only a CIO could love. It's buzzword filled, comercial oriented junk that wastes time and is the primary reason I quit reading Informationweek years ago.
It's not surprising that he would take this analyst's opinion at face value after a single night of study. Indeed, it almost looks planned. It's predictable shill type FUD.
I'll believe it when it's presented in court or published openly. If it's true, the rewrite of those 15 lines of code and comments will be out the next day.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
SCO has discovered an amendment to their contract
SCO's Methodology: Sue first, ask questions later.
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
I think here on /., we are all denying it like crazy and ludicrously thinking that SCO is suing for *no* reason
No, not no reason, but it sure seems like SCO is going off 1/2 cocked. I mean, they said they owned the IP, but the patents were clearly in Novel's name. Novel claimed they never sold the Copyrights, now they just found an ammendment *just found*, dispite asking novel for years for it? This really isn't professional... they really should have established ownership first before making these claims of theft of IP. It leaves you with the feeling if Novel said nothing until the trial, then things would have been better. SCO might loose credibility, but they still unfortunatly might have a case.
I'm very interested in this case not only for the OSS community, but for the shape of the world as we know it. Programing is a profession, a legit an popular one. The is a fuck of alot of programers in this world who have done a great many things. They talk to each other, compair notes, sign NDA, and teach. Even if this wasn't a Linux vs Unix issue, there has to be a hell of alot of programs out there that have some code in common. No matter what you're going to have some leakage at some point, dispite the NDA. Most of it is probally not willful.
How many lines of code does it need to be for it to be considered legaly willful copyright infringement?
Be warned! SCO could have a case.... and it's going to take much time to track down the people who actually wrote the code in the first place and actually establish the time from where it came from. Sco isn't going to have a fucking clue, it's just something they license from Novel, they just have a little rubber stamp on it with a contract that says *this is all mine*.
It might be something they have the rights to, it might be something out of a basic learn how to program book. It might be someones shopping list. The thing is we don't know yet.
But strangly enough, they are not going after BSD, and this is most curious.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Anyone else read her name as a women's sex toy?
Regardless of who is right/wrong/insane.. all this is doing is hurting the image of OSS.
Nothing good will come of this, no matter what the outcome.. except line the lawyers pockets..
The sooner this is over, the sooner we can all get back on track. Get this to court and get the decision over with. No matter which side 'wins'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Notque asked: What is Hara-Kiri?!
"Hara-kiri" is a term used to describe a form of ritual suicide in Japan where one disembowls themselves. It is derived from the Japanese words "hara" (stomach) and "kiri" (to cut), but is not actually a Japanese term.
The proper Japanese term for ritual suicide is "seppuku". Men used stomach cutting during seppuku. Women cut their throats. People committing seppuku used to have a trusted friend serve as a second, who would behead them as soon as they completed the ritual, thus ending the suffering of a slow death. Choosing someone trustworthy was important....you didn't want someone who would let you live.
I'm not sure, but I suspect that suppuku was outlawed during the Meiji Reformation. Most other aspects of bushido were, so.......
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
- Not all farmers are pilots
- not all pilots know how to farm
- 737s aren't used for cropdusting
Even considering the sorry state of civil aviation today, I don't think you'll see people using 737s to crop-dust. Kind of hard to get the funky powder past the check-in screeners (it's a joke)Seriously, my point was that you'd want someone who makes a living (which is the most useful definition of a professional) to analyse code, not some non-specialist.
How about we Slashdot SCO by getting every Slashdot member to sign the NDA and attempt to view the code in question?
Well gang -
:)
Here's my perspective - regardless of all the hype:
Warning: I don't claim it to be a perfect representation of Poker, but, I had fun writing it
Consider this as Poker: The chips are IP, copyrights, licenses - the "pot", of course, is potentially HUGE.
SCO claims infringement by IBM, and sues (the opening bet).
IBM says "You're bluffing", and calls.
Microsoft buys into the game by purchasing licenses to SCO's copyrights (We call, too, just to cover our asses, and we want to be in the game as well).
Novell chips in, and raises (You're bluffing, SCO - we own the copyrights, let's see what you have).
SCO gets dealt what they deem a Joker (we got the rights we always said we had - see?) - and in this game, Jokers are wild (or so SCO thinks). SCO raises.
Next bet is to IBM, I think.
Personally - I think it will play out thus: IBM calls, once (they don't care, really that Jokers are wild - they have a lot of chips, and can buy the pot at will, if they wish, and deem it worth the price).
Microsoft, seeking to shore up its position, calls as well (They, too, have a lot of chips, but won't waste them on raising at this point, and won't try to buy the pot unless they are sure they can win - but they can always negotiate with IBM later).
Novell calls, not really caring about the outcome (they have a lot of chips, too, but are already firmly positioned outside this game, and so don't care to try to buy the pot, since they correctly deem it a relatively small one at this point).
So, IBM calls, Microsoft calls, Novell calls. SCO folds.
Just my opinion.
It'll be interesting to see what happens, though.
Regards,
dj
Lifted from here -
;)
Find out what 'Volume Licensing Options for 2003' really mean for your enterprise from industry expert, Laura DiDio. Laura's expertise in the industry has taken her from being a reporter in the high-tech trade press to covering the networking industry's top analyst firms. She is currently an analyst at Yankee Group where she covers Microsoft's initiatives.
Look's like she's still covering Microsoft's Initiatives. Anyone want to see a pic of this hottie?
She looks like she could have some credibility having as much press experience as she has, but I'm still concerned that she's just looking at the comments versus code. -B
'You wanna play some fuckin Linux hardball? Here's some fuckin Linux hardball! Next time you sleep with the fuckin fishes!'
Um... Did you read any of that?!
If not, let me fill you in: this isn't over, it got worse. A SCO paralegal "discovered" a legal document saying SCO owns UNIX copyrights. (How you can simply "discover" a document this important at the last minute... I don't know.)
SCO also got some sap to say that SCO's evidence is credible. She made this statement based on source code comments, just like this guy predicted.
From Linuxjournal
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
I am not a fluent english speaker nor writer but let take a look at this:
:)
--
The clause in Amendment No.2 in the Asset Purchase Agreement states:
A. With respect to Schedule 1.1(b) of the Agreement, titled "Excluded Assets", Section V, Subsection A shall be revised to read:
All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise it rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies. However, in no event shall Novell be liable to SCO for any claim brought by any third party pertaining to said copyrights and trademarks.
--
Would it state that SCO as the right to inforce the sublicing of UnixWare and UNIX only? Or did I miss something.
Please Help
assert(expired(knowldege)); core dump
The news.com.com article claims:
However, for SCO to bring copyright-based lawsuits against Linux users, SCO would have to show that the copyright transfers have been registered at the U.S. Copyright Office, Ferrell said.
I'm not sure if that means by not recording the transfers SCO's prevented themselves from suing, or if it just means they'd need to get them recorded before they'd be able to sue, but they don't seem to be recorded.
The only copyrights that Norvell assigned to anybody that got recorded are "ConvertPerfect 2.0 for DOS & 153 other titles" to Corel and "Novell Internet caching system 1.0 & 2 other titles" to Volera. (From COHS, the Copyright Office's copyright ownership document database.)
Yesterday when details of NDA came out everyone spoke about the impossiblity to say anything if you signed. This is obviously not the case, since you can say that "My impression is that [SCO's claim] is credible."
... under an NDA :)))
Lets mirror this. Someone familiar with the linux kernel signs the NDA, examines the code. Then without disclosing anything, greps the linux kernel (lets say current stable from kernel.org) for those annotations. I'm curious whether he or she will find them. But lets say they are there. From then on, it will be traceable where those annotations came from, and it may turn out that they came from a common source, or SCO directly. Then, making a public announcement that SCO's claims have no credibility would be perfectly legal, just as its OK to say thaat they have some credibility.
If SCO denies that, the evidence should be presented to them
"Our interpretation of this is that we have the copyrights for Unix and UnixWare technologies," said SCO spokesman Blake Stowell. The amendment, dated Oct. 16, 1996, was signed about a year after the original transfer agreement.
opengroup owns the copyright to UNIX.
Those idiots didn't even know they had given SCO the copyrights. They just want to get into the news and appear to be a champion of open source crap, because it constantly burns their ass that their company just doesn't matter anymore.
SCO code, IBM submitted it to Linux?
BSD code, both SCO and IBM copied it?
Linux code written by IBM, SCO copied it?
etc
The fundamental problem here is the Linux code is open and the change logs from release to release are freely available to anybody who wants to look.
SCO code is a secret. Only SCO knows the evidence chain; only SCO knows the change logs.
Will SCO be able to provide the courts with credible evidence that their code was written first?
The longer SCO fails to identify those parts of Linux sources that are a problem, the less friendly they will find a judge. To actively prevent the minimisation of damages will be their undoing.
I like Cringely's solution the best. IBM buys the IP and copyrights from Novell and then turns around and releases UNIX into the public domain. Hell, it'd be worth a billion dollars just to see the look on McBribe & Co. face. Indeed a priceless moment...
No no no, send McBride to head up the new office in Afganistan.
STFU.
While not a codemonkey, Laura seems to have reasonable credentials.
Here is her gigaweb bio, and a brief from the Yankee Group (scroll down, page 2).
This is more like asking a Pilot or an Air Traffic Controller to compare two planes than a farmer (as others have suggested), but I don't think anyone will be satisfied until at least a few mechanics can get into the systems with wrenches.
Even then, if SCO would kindly display what lines they believe are duplicated so that the Linux community can begin the task of tracking down the contributors, then we can have a discussion. Having NDA'd analyists examine the code only is like having the city and a city-appointed lawyer have discussions about the legality of your house while you are explicitly forbidden from coming to the table. Because so much of our livelihood depends upon it, and we have invested so much in it, nobody will accept the judgement unless we are allowed to see the proof.
And even then, of course, there will need to be proof that this *is* SCO code, and not just same-function code, statistical coincidence, or code that SCO stole from Linux.
BTW, caldera has a list (with pictures!) of the board of directors here. Perhaps a few million phone calls will convince them to do what they should have done in the first place and tell us what code exactly they think is copied. Without being able to research their claims due to the choice of the board of directors, we should at least investigate their board of directors.
-C
The ______ Agenda
Interresting. I suppose SCO is doing a good job. Before we were arguing this whole thing is BS, and they side stepped our arguments.
/.
The steps;
1. SCO is off their rocker and their is likely no stolen code.
2. Novell interjects: Not only that but SCO does not even have the copyright to the code they claim is stolen.
3. SCO rebuts: Yes we do.
4. Well IBM should settle since the code is obviously stolen.
I do not know what 2 and 3 have to do with getting from 1 to 4, but this is the strange path which seems to have been taken on
Yeah, sorry about that - guess I didn't read far enough :-/
IBM should show no mercy. They need to torch SCO and piss on it's grave.
Currently the arguments circulated by SCO about Linux and the code transfer from Unix read like the film script of an IT variant of Dallas.
Daily, new companies and experts announce their opinions.
Some, like Novell, have serious points, others like Lindows spread hot air.
Both IBM and SCO, in their billion dollar suit, have ordered their technicians to maintain strict silence, as have Novell.
There, even the lawyers involved with the SCO contract refer to a statement from their legal department prohibiting them from discussing the matter.
There is also some deeper gossip. Many developers have quietly expressed their surprise, that the code and technical information generated for the Monterey project, supplied by SCO to IBM, could be at all rewarding for Linux:
Disbelief faces the suppliers. Any real proof over the Cut & Paste allegations by SCO is missing, until the code is revealed.
Now Christoph Hellwig has unexpectedly become an in demand figure.
The German software developer worked at Caldera (the old name for SCO) as a code maintainer and was part of the team, concerned with patches and bugfixes for the Linux Kernel.
Later they developed the Linux ABI Project further, which allowed implementation of unmodified Unix programs, making it possible to run software written for UnixWare and Open Server, under Caldera's Linux.
At present Hellwig is busy with SGI.
While Hellwig worked at Caldera, he commented on the relationship of SCO Unixware and Linux.
Hellwig explained at that time, copying from Unix code to Linux and vice versa were impractical:
"the Internals of the Kernels are so different that one would need a big glue compatibility layer. And that will promptly, with the next kernel review, be ripped apart."
Now that Hellwig's comments are widely discussed. We have reason enough to ask about their relation to this case.heise on-line: Do you stand by these comments?
Hellwig : Naturally.
heise on-line: SCO compared the condition of Linux with that of a bicycle, until IBM came along and then the project became a car.
Hellwig : The comparison may sound beautiful for people without any specialized knowledge, however it has purely nothing to do with reality.
Linux existed before the commitment of IBM, before the participation of large enterprises in it's development for which, in most areas of application, it was substantially more useful than UnixWare or Open Server ever were.
I see the participation of large enterprises in Linux development as a very positive move.
I do not consider it meaningful however, to place the desires of these enterprises ahead of the development of the official Linux releases.
Large enterprises tend to be inclined to be satisfied with technical solutions which are suboptimal, and to neglect areas of application which do not offer sufficient sales opportunities.
heise on-line: Will SCOs actions be successful?
Hellwig : I doubt that SCO will succeed in the legal sense with this action.
On the other hand SCO is already now successful in the sense that the share price rose and they have received other financial injections (for example the Microsoft Deal).
As long as SCO does not possess the rights to SVR4, SCO can only sue IBM for for publishing trade secrets.
Proving this will be very difficult, I don't need to say any more on that.
Something which is continuously forgotten in the debate:
Contrary to SCO, I do not refer explicitly to Unix.
Unix a registered trade mark of the OpenGroup, which any certified operating system may use, it is common use of language for any UNIX95/98 to be referred to by the term, and never, specifically to designate SCOs operating systems, Open server and Unixware. Which, as opposed to AIX, are not UNIX98 certified.
Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
Ordinarily, when two parties have a dispute, one party gives the other a chance to work the problems out before it comes to a lawsuit. Judges and lawyers prefer doing it this way, as lawsuits are a mess for everyone concerned.
SCO has not given IBM or anyone else the chance to resolve the problems before filing suit. In fact, they specifically refused to let anyone to see what code was duplicated specifically so they couldn't remove it from Linux (in other words, resolve the issue before court).
It looks to me that SCO, unable to make money any other way, is hoping a judge will help them make their earnings for the quarter, if not the fiscal year.
IANAL, etc.
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
I know it'd be a tall task and maybe not possible, but has any group of developers considered paging through the Linux 2.4 source code and asking the question, "Who wrote this?" for distinct blocks of the software? At least the OSS community might be able to narrow down the suspect code to what isn't accounted for after two or three rounds of asking the question.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
We already had a bunch of our own customer's asking us what we thought about Linux usage, and many are hesitant to move to it now (which they want to do).
This is very very bad news, best thing to happen to MS in a long time.
- sigs are for wimps.
its one thing to sue someone becuase they did you wrong and released some code that souldn't have been released.. its another thing to sue them for ONE BILLION DOLLARS.
that is why SCO is so unbelievable.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Are these people insane? Linux is a boon to humanity. Anyone who can't see that is blind. If Linux is communism, it's time to take another look at communism, because it looks to me like a beautiful thing.
;)
Communism is a beautiful thing. Just it has to be applied to everyone, and everyone has to apply themselves to it. Basic human greed and the need for power undermines communism at the core, which is why it doesn't work.
What the world has seen is often very badly implemented, distorted communism (Russia).
An ideal world would be communist, and noone would want power or be greedy. We don't live in an ideal world
Oh well, enough with the off topicness.
"Freeware" means that it's zero cost. Period.
You'd have to be a pretty big assclown to get your undies in a bunch when someone abbreviates "Free Software" to "Freeware". Unless you presume your audience has undertaken the entire GNU/Leninist indoctrination on the word "free".
Yeah, y'know, because there are lots of starving Ethiopians with networked clusters lying around. "Operating systems" are usually listed right after "wheat" on their want lists...
Seriously, though, this is some of the worst hyperbole I've read at this site. The last thing those struggling to eat are worrying about is kernel recompiles.
I think most of slashdot is holding that belief for two reasons:
- The assumption that if SCO had a valid reason to sue, they'd come out and say what it was, rather than saying "there's some infringing code, but we won't tell you what it is" or "there's some infringing patents, but we won't tell you what they are".
- The assumption that if SCO had a valid reason to sue, they'd *know what it is*. From the beginning of all of this, SCO has vacillitated, vaguely swapped everything, and basically been incapable of keeping their story straight for any length of time. SCO's actions have come across as a liar making increasingly grandiose claims each time that it appears people are beginning to doubt them-- complaining about patents, then when people begin pointing out that isn't a very valid reason due to clauses in the GPL, suddenly going "uh there was some source code too.. yeah! source code! lots and lots of source code, hundreds of lines, all over the place! and ESR, yeah, he is SO pro-stealing, have you ever looked at him? yeah.". Things like that. The lack of consistency begins to look like the kind of desperate flailing intrinsic in someone who wants to sue and is just looking for an excuse.
Whether these assumptions are valid are up to you. Personally I do think you have a pointt the linux community should at least recognize the possibility that SCO's claims are valid and try to make an emphasis in the public eye that if there is infringing code in linux it will be replaced immediately-- but that doesn't mean is worth it to take SCO seriously unless they can actually tell some fricking evidence to the public. How long has this public "yeah linux is doing BAD ILLEGAL THINGS, no we can't tell you what they are" nonsense been going on exactly?Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
As I pointed out a bit ago on my blog, Stowell's quote "Our interpretation of this is that we have the copyrights for Unix and UnixWare technologies," betrays how clueless these folks are.
Everyone knows you can't copyright a technology.
--When you buy proprietary software, you don't get better software. What you get is the right to complain about it.
If SCO revealed where the code is, yes, it would get removed from Linux, probably within days, if not hours. But such changes would actually be *REQUIRED* by the terms of the GPL, and the speed with which the code was changed could not actually be used as evidence that the code was of less value than SCO might claim because the much more legally demanding reason (compliance with the terms of the GPL) exists.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I have a good reason to believe that the SCO Group may have put the offending code in question into the Kernel not knowing full well the ramifications and using this excuse, the intellectual property to extort money.
.that's our code! XYZ modules have these in there and guess what, they belong to us. . .now give us money or else we'll sue you!
.bunch of no good greedy pieces of sh*t. . .
You see, SCO has a crappy unix product that blows, and since Linux is kicking its ass all over the globe they're pissed about it. So what a better way to get money? Well, put code into the Linux kernel and wait a year or two and say, hey. .
I hate f*cking SCO. .
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
I found the capture image at SCO.de quite amusing:
"Relax -- Worry Free Software"
So far, it seems they manage to worry Free Software quite successfully.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
I can see many ways that SCO could be cheating on this 'under NDA' information.
1. They modified the code (either Linux or SCO base) before showing it to the examiner, to make it look like it was closer than it actually was. Did the examiner bring his own copy of the source trees, or use those supplied by SCO?
2. The code was copied FROM Linux into SCO. Judicious back dating would be used to try to hide this fact.
3. A non-programmer doesn't understand code, and is probably only looking at the comments. In a million lines of code how hard is it to find similiar comments in unrelated sections of code.
4. Both the SCO and Linux programmers read the same books/articles, and the comments are based on what was there, thus giving similiar comments. Do the comments match up to Knuth's books?
5. Both SCO and Linux got the code from the same source. How much of BSD has SCO copied into their kernel?
6. The code in question is similiar to what you do in your beginning programming classes, and most programmers use similiar comments for that kind of thing. How many different ways are there to comment a bubble sort?
7. Someone within SCO supplied the code to Linux. Maybe in preperation for this case.
8. etc.
Until SCO allows someone capable of researching the origins of the code in question, I'll continue to believe that it is SCO that is in the wrong.
The code for both systems is already available to many people. Allowing others to see what they are complaining about won't make the suspect code disappear. If they just pointed at a bit of Linux code, they wouldn't even have to show their own code.
The only reason for not disclosing it before the trial is to gain time to hide their trail, or to deny IBM time to research their wild claims.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
That *really* proves stuff...
Step 1: Find a chunk of code where you had an older implementation that is in principle the same (for small to medium problems, the solution is usually the same)
Step 2: Change variable names and comments to match Linux's code. Won't show up in a recompile now, would it?
Step 3: Sue Linux et al for copyright infringement.
Step 4: Profit
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It is nothing like deciding if two cows or planes _look_ the same. It is like deciding if two cows are the same cow, or two planes are the same plane. Everyone knows you can't have two planes that are the same plane. And you can't have two cows that are the same cow. The article implies that code was copied unmodified (but doesn't actually say it. Actually, the article doesn't reveal any new information at all. If that is a result of the resctrictivness of the NDA then it is proof that the NDA thing is bunk) Anyone can tell if the code is copied and pasted because it matches, letter for letter.
Bold assumptions on my personality and who I am/what I think. Nice shot, but no thanks. :P
Anyway, what I meant was simply that there is a clear distinction between software that you download that is labeled as freeware, and OSS. I've never seen any OSS labeled as freeware before.
Hey, maybe I'm wrong, and if so, rather than insult me, why don't you show me some OSS (where the source isn't bound by some license that states you can't redistribute your modifications, with or without permission) and I'll learn something from it.
Being an asshole doesn't exactly help anyone.
-If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
"To Novell's knowledge, this amendment is not present in Novell's files"
l
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030606/sff034_1.htm
Dummy. Hemp ain't marijuana.
Sure, but it'll give them a nasty headache and leave them feeling ripped off.
Where's the problem?
HEre's a stupid question. I'm waiting on hold for the teleconference and the lady's voice comes up and says "you are holding for the sko conference"
is the company name pronounced sko or S-C-O
One of the first questions to come to mind is "who is Laura Didio?" Some googling around will find a lot of references to her. And a couple of Bios - the already referenced HTML-ized cache copy of a PDF document might be the most recent. There is also an older one from her previous employer, the Giga Information Group. But don't stop there. Hit a few articles where Laura is quoted. Google for her and unix / linux. Look at the quotes there too.
Laura Didio's focus, as her Bios suggest, seems to be Windows and Microsoft products. And in this space, she is sometimes critical. She also comments on some Open Source software with how it competes with the entrenched Microsoft offerings. And she does occasionally comment on Unix and Linux in general. She is cautious towards Open Source and Linux in particular. If she does have a bias against Linux, it does not seem over-the-top (although I don't always agree with her assessments).
But bias isn't the point. It is expertise. She does not focus on Unix and its derivatives. I would find it surprising if she had any idea of the history involved with this system. Much less any sort of additional technical background it would take to hash out the possible origins of any given snippit of code.
And, of course, that is part of the problem. We're dealing with snippits of code. There is no context. Even an expert may have trouble tracking pedigrees in this situation - but at least they would have some chance.
The most Laura can do is get her name in the press. And become an object lesson for the warnings other analysists made over the entire situation presented by SCO and its NDA.
SCO is suing for a reason, but that reason is not related to software or a desire to get infringing code out of public distribution. It's called "Shake 'em and see what falls out." All they need is sufficient cause of action so it doesn't look like a frivolous suit to the court and it works to their advantage. Look at the results: their stock price has increased astromically in such a short time. They have a huge amount of public visibility, and maybe, just maybe, IBM will buy them out. Sure, software types may look down on them but who cares? If you only care about stock price, you need to impress the analysts. Say what you will, but buried in all the stupidity, SCO is doing something right: the price is rising steadily.
I'm beginning to think I should have picked up some shares back when it was just around $6 or so.
I put it akin to a large company trying to copyright clicking on a mouse.
How about copyrighting a video on demand system. Check that, video on demand period using block diagrams and know concrete technical system.
Which blows be away, since all the TWC video on demand content available must be based on Technology From the Future!!!
Which would completely rock, 'cept that implies Micorsoft invented time travel and has the copyright to that, too.
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
They've clearly given up on getting people to buy their product. Their new business model is FUD for hire by means of litigation.
This isn't the way to hurt them. They have nothing left to lose on that front. The way to hurt them is to find out all of what they were up to, get the proof, and then put the bastards in jail.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
lets see first its oh we need to buy the coprytight from Novell which by Novell sown admission those talks were happening several months ago..now it soh we dont nee dto buy the copyright because we bought it beofre?
..more FUD get the freaking shovels..
Ceom one
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Does anyone know if this is still Darl McBride's address?
1 02542-02-2/02-00.pdf
355 S 520 W Suite 100
Lindon, UT 84042
http://www.shareholder.com/Common/Edgar/1102542/1
I agree with all your points. Here on the west coast of the US, only 35% of guys are being circumcised. Only uninformed stupid people who buy Microsoft like lemmings choose this HORRIBLE proceedure for their sons.
Cool people and Europe choose to leave their sons intact and fully functional and natural. Plus the SUPER HOT model chicks of Europe, the WEST COAST and NY FASHION/MODEL SCENE fuck intact guys because THEY ARE THE DESIGNERS and rich people in the know.
Personally, I don't give a shit what STUPID CIRCUMCISING fuck heads do because those idiots are mindless MICROSOFT drones anyway WHO WON'T APPRECIATE freedom or the full experience of NATURAL AND REAL sex.
Like wise these McDonald eating fat fucks and pigs can circumcise all they want because it will SEPERATE the INFORMED SMART UNCIRCUMCISED from the SHEEP who WILL DO ANYTHING EVEN CUTTING THEIR SON'S PENIS. So, don't BOTHER informing these STUPID PEOPLE, they aren't worth it. Let them believe that circumcision is good.
You hit the nail on the head.
If you want to know wether two cows have the same parents (= similar code) you tell me if a geneticist or an airplane pilot will be able to provide a satisfying answer.
I wouldn't say that initials really lead to a smoking gun. We stopped using initials in comments because we had several developers with the same initials.
I.E.
MRH
Michael Robert Hannigan
Marcus Robert Howard
AGV
Aujla G. Viswanathan
Amanda Gwen Valentine
While full names might be more clear they're still not necessarily a smoking gun. A smoking gun would the the full name - date - comments matching identically.
Plus code placement is another key. If all the code snippets are the same coder AND none of the code snippets are related - then yes one might infer that it's coppied code. However if the code is all initialled the same and it's related to a specific function then it't possible for it to be a standard way to get a common task done.
I.E. I recently created a javascript api. After creating a sizable chunk of it and showing it to a colleague I got asked if I had copied it from another api. I immediately downloaded the other api and sure enough my first and third functions were identical in every way to the other api.
Oh shut up. If you don't like the label, stop doing it.
so demote them to the mail room in the IBM support helpdesk in afganistan or farm them out to be congressional letter openers. IBM contracts a heck of a lot of labour surely they could think of something creative.
Ahem, if Linus had used a source management tool like CVS from day 1, this whole thing would be a moot issue.
We could use cvs blame, I mean cvs annontate, to show us the author of the lines of code in question and trace it back to someone, perhaps SCO themselves.
I can think of the SearchKing lawsuit that was thown out of court for NO MERIT not that long ago. Slashdot had several stories on it but I'm to lazy to hunt down the URLs for you.
So I just listened to this conference call and I'm left with nothing but questions.
/boggle at SCO.
1) Is SCO implying that IBM added copyrighted source to Linux? I'm thinking this is no...
2) Are they implying that Linus Torvalds added copyrighted source to linux? Unknown.
As far as my subject of a publicity stunt, I added myself into the queue to ask a question that would hopefully shed light on this item and a couple others but was not allowed to ask the question.
They went on without me and finally said they were out of time for the call.
If you noticed, those asking questions were financial houses and online e-rags.
-D
Think of the class action lawsuit we could bring... :)
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Hmm., can anybody give a concrete example of a software patent that actually makes sense? In the EU they are currently lobbying for the introduction of software patents because not having software patents are presumably giving american companies an advantage(?strange argument, neither European nor American companies can patent software in Europe, but either can patent the most obvious goblelygook in the US)
I read the NDA posted earlier, and a potential grey area could be just saying where the code was in Linux. Would it violate the NDA to say "Take a look at lines 30-40 of pci.c"?
Dastardly
What do we think?
What do we know?
What can we prove?
I'm so sick of that. I mean, the only thing we know for sure is that we don't know anything, which also happens to be the only thing we can prove.
- Dr. Don Francis (Matthew Modine)
- And The Band Played On
May this post be indexed by spiders, and archived for all to see as my Internet epitaph.
Speaking of interesting dogs, yesterday I saw a dog which looked like a Great dane in the face and build, but had the same color pattern as a Dalmation but a little splotchier. Black and white splotches all over it. Was the freakiest looking dog I've ever seen....
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
From one of the articles:
"The fact that these appear to be transposed from Unix System V into Linux I find to be very damaging."
Sounds to me like it could easily also mean
"The fact that these appear to be transposed from Linux into Unix System V I find to be very damaging to SCO"
Who's to say the copy was one-way! If it was 2-way, isn't SCO required to GPL their stuff?
Apparently the most telling evidence is that parts of the SCO code and Linux code include identical annotations made by developers when they wrote the programs, says DiDio, who compares such notes to the signature or fingerprint of a developer's work. "The fact that these appear to be transposed from Unix System V into Linux I find to be very damaging."
Now, who in the hell at IBM would be stupid enough to include identical source code 'annotations' (which I'm assuming are comments) when stealing code?
Similar annotations, maybe, but come on - even Joe Dumbass wouldn't be so fucking stupid so as to copy-and-paste proprietary source code from one to the other, comments and all.
Further, does SCO have proof that the infringing Linux code is indeed the egg? (i.e. was SCO's code even written first?) Who's to say this case should be about a GPL violation?
To imply that IBM's developers are so stupid as to copy and paste code simply begs the question, from their own logic: Who's to say that SCO's developers who weren't so bright and pulled the copy-paste job from Linux? Who's to say that SCO didn't put the source code in there themselves, intentionally. I mean, that scenario seems more likely to me: Linux source code is freely available. Nobody outside of SCO will have seen SCO source - and if they have, they're tied and raped with NDAs.
Anyway, that's enough. Here's to SCO choking on its own arrogance.
...
After reviewing the affidavits of Plaintiff's and Defendants, experts, a great deal of uncertainty remains as to what trade secrets Net2 might contain. One fact does seem clear: the header files, filenames, and function names used by Defendants are not trade secrets. Defendants could have printed these off of any of the thousands of unrestricted copies of Plaintiff's binary object code. (Kashtan Aff. at 9-11.) Moreover, the nonfunctional elements of the code, such as comments, cannot be trade secrets because these elements are minimal and confer no competitive advantage on Defendants. The copied elements that contain instructions, such as BREAD and CPIO, might perhaps be trade secrets, but Defendants' experts have argued persuasively that these instructions are either in the public domain or otherwise exempt. As Defendants have repeatedly emphasized, much of 32V seems to be publicly available
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
What does this have to do with anything?
Let me first say, I've sat in on two out of the last three SCO conference calls. What's disappointed me most was the mature attitude and lack of childish disruption.
On today's conference call, I got my wish. Someone claiming to be George Weiss of the Gartner Group asked the most hostile and immature question I'd heard on one of these conference calls. Their question, summed up, was "How long does your company really think it can continue to decieve investors and the world?" What was an absolute hoot was McBride failing entirely to actually address the question. Not that he really needed too, but he didn't really even bother to address the whole "investor deception" bit, which I thought he would take more seriously. To their credit, they let the first Weiss ramble for a bit before answering the question.
About five questions later, the *real* George Weiss appeared and clarified that he had not, in fact, asked the hostile question. His question was some inane molly-coddling question about the emergence of some sort of consortium to settle sco's claims.
I don't know who pulled the prank but kudos to them. I was getting sick of hearing every act like a journalist who doesn't want to burn bridges.
I'm sorry, but if in fact the COMMENTS are identical.. that's pretty compelling and easily spotted by a non-programmer.
There are interesting questions to answer.. like WHO introduced the code, but in terms of credibility, identical comments are the surest sign of copy/paste that I can think of.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
If the free software has to survive, it will have to do one thing - cut off the damn software patent tree. It is the root of all problem. The companies are now going to the extent of patenting *problems*... without giving a single solution to them (see the european software patent hall of horror).
.
Today its linux kernel... with probably a couple of infringements (if at all)... have you thought of softwares like mplayer ? FYI, mplayer infringes on countless patents, copyrights and EULAs. Thats why it is based in hungary and not US or some other EU country. And you won't be able to do a single thing if its developers are sued. No amount of crying will help because copyright/patent/EULA vilation is a crime in the eyes of court
If you just worry about branches, you won't succeed. If we have to get over this hell, fight the software patent regime not the companies that are using it as a tool to strangle the freedom of people!
- mritunjai
It seems to me that this response is one of fear. All of us are feeling a bit impotent in light of the fact that we don't have billions of dollars to lobby for IBM's defense... and it is reasonable. I don't want to lose LINUX any more than you all do.
...Don't renew them.
Here is the answer: Bite SCO Back. This site is read by 6 figures worth of the worlds technocrats. You are the people who decide what gets purchased and what doesn't for the worlds networks. Some of you have UNIXWare licenses...
Let SCO (and others who might be likewise tempted. Read: M$) know that coersion will not pay off in the long run. Put them in their place by cutting off their supply of funds.
In a press release from SCO, portions of the
/* increment i by one. */
alleged infringing code were revealed. Included
was this:
i++;
The claim is that with the optimized System V cc,
this "can actually compile to a single assembly
instruction" and that the resulting performance
enhancements are the result of SCO intellectual property.
Supposedly use of this optimization technology
are found everywhere in Linux, although the
quality of the comment seems to be found only in SCO source.
-Shane
I love teh int4rw3b!!!!!111one1
It was modified to exclude from transfer "all copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the agreement, required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of Unix and UnixWare technologies."
So in other words, the original contract was amended to exclude from transfer all copyrights and trademarks required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to Unix. However, the relevant IP owned by Novell (at some particular date, presumably of the original contract) is exempt from the exclusion. I am not really clear how a judge would rule such language, in and of itself, to mean that Novell intended to transfer all relevant copyrights and trademarks to SCO - it doesn't explicitly say it (just because something is exempt from an exclusion doesn't necessarily mean that it's included, especially if the original contract gives no reason to believe that it would be included).
IANAL, but I think SCO's follow-on requests for Novell to sign clarifying documents would indicate that SCO didn't consider the contract a binding agreement to transfer the IP either, and clearly Novell's statements have indicated that they believed that. If both parties reasonably believe a contract means one thing at the time it was signed, and then one party later claims it meant something else, it's probably open to judicial interpretation of reasonableness. If SCO could show they have reasonably relied on those terms of the contract over the years, they'd have a strong case - but the evidence seems to indicate to me that they have been bluffing on the copyright ownership issue (never mind the myriad other issues), and now they think they've found some convoluted wording to back up their bluff.
If comments span multiple lines, the debugging information will point to different source lines in the two binaries.
Of course, depending on how they strip and optimize their code, it may be irrelevant anyhow.
Unless, of course, there is someone out there with an old SCO source license...
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
The article lists one of the features being:
a biometric room safe that uses a thumbprint as the lock and key
Ok, what do they do if the guest leaves without reseting the safe?
Or do they have someway to open the safe without the guests thumbprint. Do they not eliminate the purpose of the safe then?
Good Luck. The kernel doesn't use cvs.
<One non-programmer corporate analyst has already reviewed the code ... >
Big fucking deal. What's a non-programmer going to say about code?
I agree. To spell it out in detail:
Even assuming that the newer code is a copy of the older version, it would take an experienced programmer to judge whether the older version was something original and copyrightable, or whether both are verbatim copies from a known public domain source. As a trivial example, I expect that within every Unix and Linux there is a quicksort routine-- and it wouldn't surprise me too much if the exact same textbook solution, complete with identical comments, showed up time and again across brands. Why risk introducing a bug when there is a public domain wheel ready to roll? And why mess with good documentation if it's already there? Can you really say anything better about quicksort than what Knutt has said?
Another thing-- a non-programmer's assessment that the comments are identical means just that and only that: the comments are identical. If I have a copy of a well documented, successful chunk of code that does what I need to do, I might blow off all the code and use the comments as a guide in writing my original work. Is a non-programmer capable of telling whether the code itself is a knock-off? I don't think so. I don't think a non-programmer would be able to judge whether changes are superficial or whether the core structures used to meet the specifications in the identical comments were different.
So all I've learned from the article is that there were some shared comments. This isn't a smoking gun.
Given the recent record of "analysts" on Wall Street, has anyone checked the credentials of the analyst cited in the article to see if she has a stake in the outcome?
Yes, but if I'm running a small aid organization and I have to pay >$100 per workstation in Windows licenses (plus whatever the hell their "server" OS costs), that's a lot of money that won't find its way to the people I'm trying to help. Same thing with commercial Unices.
In the long run, Linux won't be harmed by this. IBM's too smart (and too pissed) to settle, the code will come out in the discovery phase of the trial, and *even if* it's been illegally copied into the kernel, it'll be replaced faster than you can say "free as in speech." Whatever SCO contributed is dwarfed by the millions of lines of valid, copylefted code that will live on. Linux can't be "damaged," because those who need it the most won't just arbitrarily choose a more expensive version after hearing from some analyst that Linux is "tainted."
Not all companies keep spotless records of transactions that occured many years ago.
Is it legal after a certian date to not keep track, i donno. But it does happen, things do get lost that are sigificant. We are talking about human beings, and with all the mergers/buyouts/etc sometimes things fall thru the cracks.
Sometimes noone notices.. sometimes they do..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Thank you for that clarification, Tiroth . You are, of course, entirely correct:
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
If the government granted incentive monopolies in any other part of the economy - most people would see this as communisim, but when the do it with IP then all of a sudden people see it as capitalisim. Bullshit. Just because the government calls something a "property" does not mean it is (nor was it in 1850 ... damn you - you "stole" those slaves off my plantation - you must be anti-free market, I paid for those slaves dammit, I paid to train them dammit! You owe me!!!!)
Thankfully many of us naturally understand that free markets are not about phoney rights and phoney markets, but about freedoms and how we apply them to improve and better ourselves in a free society. Unfortunately SCO, Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPAA do not understand this and the sooner we make them pay the bitter price they deserve, the sooner we will all be able to enjoy the benefits that the information age has to offer.
Yeah, y'know, because there are lots of starving Ethiopians with networked clusters lying around. "Operating systems" are usually listed right after "wheat" on their want lists...
Seriously, though, this is some of the worst hyperbole I've read at this site. The last thing those struggling to eat are worrying about is kernel recompiles.
The thing is the person has a point. It's not like SCO actually developed the code in the first place. It was just something that they bought, pure and simple, a comercial product already developed.
Part of "don't copy that floppy campain" uses a guilt trip that you should support the programers that developed a game or application. Actually the anti-piracy movement kida made me ill. The attitude that you should support these people who made the software is a damn good idea. But when ya buy your software on closeout, it's not like you are supporting the programers anymore, and buying a used copy doesn't support the programers. That's just a superficial justification chant of the hippocrical oaf.
This was the point this person was making, the simple fact that you should support the people who activly develop the software, you should support the workers... this is a very marxist attidude. SCO represents the very embodyment of the bourgeoisie. It's far worse cause SCO didn't reallly develop their product in the first place. We can buy other people's work and sell it, whooo hooo!
If your honest goal is to support the developers of the software you use, then by no means should you support SCO. Those people were paid for their work long ago, you are not feeding a programer, your feeding a fat cat. But this is an emotional rational. If SCO actually bought the code to actually improve upon it and did a good job, my feelings would be diffrent. But it's overpriced crap from a left over 80's business model that has been shown to not work.
Linux on the other hand is a diffrent model, the product it self is free. It is presently in development and being inovated. While there isn't presently a single desktop enviroment that I would reccomend to my grandmother, it on the whole is a decent product. I would never say it has a maxist model, that would be far too limiting.
It isn't about Ethiopians with a networked clusters. It's about your common man. If you are talking america, businesses toss away pentium II class machines daily that your average joe can pickup on the street. It's about a product that can be used by anyone who wants it, without fear of a jail sentance the likes of which a person who commits a violent crime is unlikely to see. Linux in it self offers a viable legal solution to the piracy problem. And, arguably makes a contribution to the planet earth. It promotes the freedom to experiment and inovate.
And yea, linux can be implemented in Africa to faciliate communication between farmers to resove the issue that their family managed farms lost their passed down knowlege of how to farm! Aids ya know, it's a killer. Digital copys of an African Farmers Almanac would be fucking useful, but not practical based on SCO's cost, or microsoft's for that matter (side note, i'd be happy to donate a copy of backoffice to any African farm aide organization, but I wouldn't want to infect africa with exchange server).
What the fuck has SCO done? Jack squat.
Open standards assure that your data you save today can be accessed tomorrow. Knowledge is at the heart of improving the human condition.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Unless you meant that no SCO product has any Unix98 certification (apparently there are three), which does seem to be true.
-- I avoid spam by accepting only OpenPGP encrypted or signed email at this address. Clear-signed, RFC2015, heck, even
This can be faily obvious and may have nothing at all to do with the algorithm the function itself actually uses to get the results.
for example:
int Add(int a, int b)
{
return (a + b);
}
int Add (int a, int b)
{
return (a && b);
}
clearly the two functions could have been written by different programmers, and clearly the comments are obvious to anyone, and not a signal that it's 'copied'
Speak for yourself.
XXX 12:04 est 2003-06-06
Blake Stowell says that Darl McBride and Chris Sontag will be talking today.
XXX 12:05
Darl McBride talks about the Novell announcement of May 28, 2003. "In fact, Novell does not own the copyrights." "SCO is the only rightful owner of the Unix System 5 source code and copyrights." "Portions of the Unix System 5 code were found in Linux." "Linux users need to obtain opinions from their own legal counsel."
XXX 12:07 Question and Answer session
[question #1] Peter Gally, eWeek magazine
Q: share price was up 29% today ahead of announcements of news. What do you attribute that to? A: "I can't really comment on that." Q: "Did you or any SCO executives buy or sell any shares yesterday?" A: "I personally didn't" ... not aware of any who did.
[question #2] Hiawatha Bray, Boston Globe
Q: "When Friday the 13th rolls around ... what are you going to do?" (regarding AIX license revocation)
A: "We have a number of options at our disposal."
[question #3] Stephen Shankland, CNET
Q: Copyright office does not have an assignment on file [for the Unix copyrights from Novell]. "Is it your understanding that the copyrights have not been registered yet?" A: "Stephen is correct ... [if we need] we will change the assignment of copyright ..." [we can do that at any time].
[question #4] "George Weiss", "Gartner Group" [Note: caller #4 was later exposed as an imposter]
Q: "How long can you continue to deceive investors ... if you're not trying to get bought out, what are you trying to do?"
A: "We're trying to protect our IP rights."
[question #5] Todd Weiss, Computer World
Q: "Where can we see the Asset Purchase Agreement?" A: "We have a lot of documents ... 30,000 contracts ... in the case of the Asset Purchase Agreement ... SEC filings on the Internet."
[question #6] Herbert Jackson, Renaissance Ventures
Q: "Were patents addressed?" [in the Novell-SCO asset purchase agreement] A: "Ownership of the patents was not something that SCO has ever claimed."
[question #7] Lenny Brecken, Brecken Capital
Q: "Why wasn't amendment [amendment 2 to Novell Asset Purchase Agreement] immediately available?" A: "[It was available ...] inside of four business days."
Q: "[Patent question] ... is that relevant?"
A: "This isn't a patent case."
A: "30,000 contracts .. methods, concepts, know-how ..." [that is, their 30,000 sub-licensing agreements contain contract language restricting those things]
[question #8] Roger Howerth, IP Week
Q: "Why will you not provide details [of the offending source code]?" A: "Source code is a little bit different ..." [long answer about how revealing source code would damage the trade secret status of their claims] ... "confidentiality protection"
[question #9] George Weiss, Gartner Group [Unlike question #4, this time it's the REAL George Weiss]
Statement: "I didn't ask the earlier question." A: "We already knew that" ... "I appreciate you clarifying that." ... suggestion to the fake George Weiss to drop off the call.
Q: "Are you aware of any organized movement ... to settle the claims with SCO?"
A: "I can't comment" ... "discussions with large players."
[question #10] Lenny Brecken, Brecken Capital
Q: [AIX license revocation] "Are you going to hold a CC on that date [June 13]?" A: "... on the 16th, we will take the appropriate steps ..."
XXX 12:22 Blake Stowell, closing statement
[If you want a replay, or want to followup, contact us
What does it prove, when coments (and supposedly the code too) is the same?
Only that SOMEBODY has copied it. It doesn' t prove that it has copied FROM SCO's UNIX to Linux. There is possibility that somebody at SCO has taken that code from Linux.
SCO has to prove that copied code is theirs. And that is not necessarily easy task, i think?
On the other hand, which case has bigger possibility?
1. Copied code is from SCO Unix. Which source code is supposedly secret. Only a few people can access to code.
2. Copied code is from Linux. And Linux's source code is freely accessible for everybody...
I'd say that case 2. has bigger possibility...
until recently. Perhaps Alan Cox and/or RedHat has a previous record of events.
I meant || not &&, sorry, and yes it only works for powers of 2, that's not the point, it's an illustration
Speak for yourself.
I believe this is known as carrying an
argument to its extreme conclusion.
Anyways, there are billions of people in
the world who are financially
1. Not as wealthy as the average North
American (or Western European, or Japanese, etc., for that matter)
2. Not actually currently in the process of
starvation.
A person, government, school or company that
can't afford to pay into Microsoft's much reviled licensing scam 6 may still actually have, use, and benefit from computers.
Yes, there are indeed starving people in this world, and they don't need computers right now. They need food.
Nevertheless the original posters comments about the goodness of Linux (relative to MSCO) still applies to a lot of people.
It's more like trying to determine based on looks if two cows have the same parents or not, or if the same team of engineers worked on two different planes based on external appearances. You can make guess, maybe even some educated guesses, but without other proof, you can never say for sure.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
After you get your ass sued by every one of those members for libel and slander (remember they will do this, they make more money then you'll ever see in your lifetime) Remember the good old days when you were merely a wanker. Now you're a broke wanker, who sells his ass on the streets trying to make ends meet.
That is known as a 'Harlequin Great Dane' just a different color pattern. Here is a link with pictures:
http://www.champdogs.co.uk/breeder/3096.html
Perhaps the original poster was thinking more contextually, something on the order of donation-supported NGOs operating in poverty-stricken areas being able to save costs and provide area-based communications or computing with Linux, rather than actual people in huts trying to work spreadsheets.
The poster's points are perhaps extreme, but they are in the end valid, in my opinion.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
From the IW story:
"My impression is that [SCO's claim] is credible," says Laura DiDio, a Yankee Group analyst who was shown the evidence by SCO Group earlier this week. "It appears to be the same" code.
[slightly off-topic here] This is a day where I've had it up to here with analysts. Analysts are like the cyst on my back: they are normally a nuisance that you don't pay much attention to, except when they get puffed up and have to be lanced. In other news, a so-called security analyst at mi2g has pronounced that last month, there were more cyberattacks against Linux than against Windows, without giving any f*cking proof. And he was widely quoted in the media. Apparently making stuff up passes for credible analysis. [end slightly off-topic rant]
I find it patently ridiculous that a IT web site would be quoting a non-programmer industry analyst who has examined source code (for what? the kernel? gcc? Tux Racer?) and makes a pronouncement that "it appears to be the same code". This analyst doesn't know kernel panic from clusterf*ck, and she says "it appears to be the same code".
Maybe this is a reason not to document one's code with comments, especially if it's proprietary. The old saw is, there's only one reason not to document code or to use obscure variable names: job security. Maybe SCO believes this, and wishes that System V developers had done such a sh*tass job that neither IBM or anyone else would have attempted to copy "their" code.
[cranial smoke dissipates]
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
I still bus tickets and crap going back to 1984, and Novell didn't have a COPY OF THE SIGNED CONTRACT AMENDMENT GRANTING COPYRIGHT OF UNIX TO SCO!?!?!?!?
What the...!?!?
In one of the articles Novell spokesperson states that Novell believes the amendment has a vaild Novell signature. That's pretty substantive.
What next, saying that they must be copied because they both include the same lines:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#ifndef SOME_THING_IN_CAPS_H
#include "some_thing.h"
#endif
int main(int argc, car* argv[], char* env[]) {
Sheesh!
There are a few straight forward things here:
Until there is a court decission the linux community and clients cannot be held liable (I bought and used the faulty tires, does that mke me liable in their failing and killing my family?)
Only after such court decission of there being SCO code in Linux will there then be possible liability upon the community/clients should they do nothing within a "reasonable amount of time" to correct the matter. Either by paying royalities to SCO or the removal/replacement of the offending code.
But in no case will anyone be held liable for wrongs someone else committed, unless they so chose to continue on a wrong path after being informed of the wrong. As of NOW, there is only claim of wrong and that is just not good enough.
Both Proof and a reasonable time in which to correct the problem is required before the Linux community and client base can be held liable.
And we all know that any such problems will most certainly be addressed and corrected by the Linux development community well within any reasonable timeline.
EVEN SCO knows this.
And that is their reason for not disclosing the proof of their claims regarding the code. Intent to cause unjustified prolonged harm.
Even if there is SCO code in the Linux source, what SCO is doing now is obvious and intentional acts of unjustified damage against Linux, it's development community and user/client base. For it should be a matter of certainty that by far the majority of Linux developers were not knowingly involved. As such the Linux Development and User/Client Base can file and pursue a Class Action Law Suit Against SCO.
If IBM is guilty of injecting such code into Linux and promoting others to do so, then IBM can be sued by the Linux community in what would amount to be a class action law suit.
The same goes for any other company or individual who knowingly injects into the collective works of many many people, such property as to cause a degradation of the values many have worked to achieve an use with such understanding.
For it is certainly an act of those honestly contributing to such a work, as to free themselves from the hold and manipulation of such parities in such contrast of the GPL.
Certainly the EFF should know this!!!!!
Yes, that may be bad for business for the short term snip...
Even this is not necessarily true. I've known several bright and motivated people who could have built up highly successfull businesses with their ideas. Instead they spent all their time and money trying to tie up their IP in patents. Ultimately it was largely a waste of time with just a pretty piece of paper on the wall and thousands of dollars spent.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
If there is an exact copy of some comment from Sys V and Linux can't we build a database of comments in Sys V (someones got to have the code) and a database of comments in Linux and check simularities?
Couldn't this be done with a few simple grep or sed commands?
Sure there would be alot of trivial differences, but if SCO is right and there is a complex alogrithm inside Linux copied for SysV then the comments for that code should be fairly obvious.
They must know how stupid they sound if they don't want to show their faces as they say it!! :-)
Ben
Of course, even this can backfire. I saw a commercial for some (ahem) herpes medicine, that featured a young, shapely blonde snuggling around with her beau at some nature park, and couldn't help thinking "Well how do you think you got herpes in the first place, chickadee?"
Wow, you're really humor-impaired!
Maybe I'm a bit late to the show, but I noticed MIMEDefang version 2.34-BETA-5 includes a new "--enable-running-on-scummy-sco" option.
:)
I wonder how many SCO admins will actually use this option.
A bunch of whores willing to rent out their "objective" "analyst" services to the highest bidder.
Don't ever believe a thing you read from them is unbiased. They write "unbiased, uncommissioned" reports that favor one vendor, and then turn around and do product tours and road shows with the very vendors they favor.
I think here on /., we are all denying it like crazy and ludicrously thinking that SCO is suing for *no* reason. Why would a company sue unless it has at least something to base its case on? I mean, i think it is more likely than not, that SCO did find some code which infringes on its contract/copyright/whatever.
Ya know, I couldn't understand this either. In an early thread re SCO, I tried pointing out how this was similiar to the AT&T vs. BSD suit of the early 90's, how at the root of all this was the basic question of "did or didn't someone copy code from one to the other" and how easy it was for this to all actually be true.
Instead of getting some well thought out replies (actually I did get a few) I instead got caused a Microsoft Lover, Linux hater, flamed, and all manner of other stupid kiddie-like responses.
In this thread, I see it again. This couldn't be true because this lady doesn't know how to look at kernel sources, i.e. a comment of "open a file" is probably what she was looking at. Come on now - have the people actually writing these posts ever seen the kernel source before? There are no comments even close to anything like that. You don't have to be a technical person to find copy+pasted code bits, and chances are whoever found this stuff wasn't looking manually, they used a program (grep like) to search for the offending code bits.
Again, I say instead of coming up with reasons as to why this couldn't be true, we should also be looking at why it could be true and trying to fix it (if possible, but SCO does have to release the offending code bits or we gotta find them first). Denying all of this up to the last minute is only going to hurt us more in the long run - especially if it all turns out to be true.
I've had enough too!
How about we pool our assets as a community, buy that urban assault vehicle and aircraft carrier recently reported for sale, and go after them!
Use the urban assault vehicle on SCO and the aircraft carrier on M$.
Problems solved, and we can all get back to computing with some degree of freedom.
Few have made mention that this may be a case of sabotage.
Hmmm, a US corporation, suing someone for outrageously inflated sums of money as a way to either gain some fast cash or prevent someone else from doing same, without legal merits? Nah, you're right, it couldn't happen.
This is the second major Unix copyright lawsuit. The first one went away, quietly, shortly after it was necessary to provide evidence.
SCO is owned by Caldera, a major corporate Linux contributor. Caldera is largely responsible for many of the Linux improvements SCO alleges were stolen from them.
SCO used to give away genuine (but old) Unix sources for free from their own web server, until a month or two after filing their lawsuit, after which they disappeared. Whoops?
The text of the SCO lawsuit looks like it's intended to be read by stockholders and trade analysts, not lawyers or judges. It also claims that IBM stole features from SCO that are not present in either of SCO's Unix products.
-- I avoid spam by accepting only OpenPGP encrypted or signed email at this address. Clear-signed, RFC2015, heck, even
In the USL vs BSDI & UC Board of Regents case annotations were explicitly discounted as infringements because they have no role in the execution of the software and are thus immaterial breeches.
I don't think that's the point. As I see it, code for the same function converges to the same idioms. Comments, being freeform text, vary a lot more. For instance I make characteristic spellos in my typing.
If the code *isn't* a cut and paste, there's really no way the comments would be identical. It's a smoking gun that the code has been copied wholeseale.
Thus:
same comments -> cut and paste code -> ??? -> profit!
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
As a matter of Linux community majority interest....
Taking what actions we can to try and identify and resolve any code conflicts will at worse show that it is not the intent of the high majority of Linux developers an users to infringe upon the IP of another.
It would also show that the withholding of such evidence to enable direct and immediate correction of any code conflict is a clear indication of intent to cause undue prolonged harm to the Linux Community.
Providing grounds for the Linux community to file a class action Lawsuit against such parties who have knowingly injected conflicting code.
There should be no question of the intent of the mass majority of the Linux community to produce and use a product of and for the community that enables them to free themselves of those who are in contrast of the GPL.
Say both codes include "int a;". Well, to a non-programmer, they stole the code. To a programmer, nope, it's what a lot of people use.
Not, thats not true. Consider literature. Two books start with "once upon a time". Doesn't mean they are copied. And non-programmers wouldn't assume it either.
Same with your other example. On the other hand, when you have paragraphics of comments, like are common, or a *pattern* of identical comments, then you can start to get a feel for whether or not the code is copied.
Why should a set of instruction dictating how to do something be patentable? Should I be able to patent my grocery list? "Buy these items: Bread, milk, and a six-pack of Mountain Dew." Now anyone who wants to buy these things had better not write them down!
I think that software is more like speech and should be covered by a copyright but not a patent. Patenting how to do things is just a bad idea that has already gone way too far.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm sure they all have contract clauses that stipulate that in the event of a buyout they get a nice healthy chunk of money. That kind of clause is standard operating procedure for corporate executives.
>If you are looking for duplicate code, then its
>a pretty non-programmer task.
It's not so simple if you're expecting a functional analysis as opposed to a textual one.
If you assign someone to a task like this, programmer or non-programmer, I would hope that certain controls are in place as would be appropriate for any solid research method. I would expect the people doing the the review to be presented with some things to compare that have been intentionally constructed as checks of the validity and thoroughness of the work. Further, I'd expect the work sample to be distributed among several groups, for controls.
[disclosure: i am short scox]
But bias isn't the point. It is expertise.
I'm not picking on your comment in particular because I actually agree with most of it, as far as it goes. I'm just going to use your statement as a starting point.
Bias isn't the point, and expertise isn't the point, either. Due process is the point.
When SCO goes to court, they will their evidence to the judge, the jury, and IBM's lawyers. The court will allow IBM to present IBM's evidence and IBM's evidence. The court will allow IBM to cross-examine SCO's witnesses.
There are also rules against hearsay evidence. It's not legal to introduce evidence that somebody has an opinion about something when the actual something is readily available.
That is, SCO can't just come in and say "Laura Didio looked at our evidence" and then have Laura Didio testify. SCO will have to present the evidence that Laura Didio has to testify about. And they have to make all that evidence available to IBM in advance, so that IBM can see if there is another explanation (SCO copying from Linux, SCO making claims about errno.h, SCO making claims about code that SCO submitted to Linux, whatever).
So my question for SCO is:
Regarding the information that you provided to Laura Didio: have you provided a copy of this information to IBM's counsel?
IANAL, but I am somewhat familiar with IP law having been involved in litigation. SCO claims that IBM disclosed their secrets by publishing their source code. IBM is the ONLY party here that can in fact be sued on this issue. First of all, you cannot copyright or patent a secret without disclosing it to the eye of the public. Think about it. The two processes cannot work together. If IBM in fact breeched their contract, I do not see what recourse SCO would have against the general Linux community and users since they received the code in good faith without knowledge of IBM's alleged action. From what I remember (having signed several NDA's in my life), Only I could have been liable for damages caused by my disclosure. Once the cat is out of the bag, there is no way to get it back in. Once the trade secret is publicly known- it is no longer a trade secret. Further, it is not protected by copyright or patent law. My guess would be is that IBM is the only certifiable defendent in this mess.
How many ways are there to misspell "Invalid IOCTL for device" or "Not a typewriter?" Both are descritpions of ENOTTY, and chances are, those comments following those descriptions will be identical, as the text description of an error is pretty well standard across all platforms.
A solution to the problem with music today
"A SCO paralegal found the amendment Thursday in a filing cabinet, Stowell said. It's titled "Amendment No. 2"; Amendment No. 1 is "completely immaterial" to the issue of copyrights and trademarks, said Stowell, who said he believes there are no other amendments."
Is it just me, or is it odd that this very important piece of a major purchase contract was "found in a filing cabinet"? It seems that SCO seems to be pulling things from who knows where. It's true that any press is good press for a company like SCO, and they are keeping their name in the headlines.
I wonder what else is in that filing cabinet. Map of Atlantis? Pandora's Box? Jimmy Hoffa? Pictures of who really shot JFK? The holy grail?
5) Charge a license fee to all Linux vendors to maximize shareholder profits or sue them into non-existance.
I just love the idea of IBM owning Linux.
I have a hard time relating Communism to open source, and here's why:
Let's use corn as an example. We're all corn growers in our communist state. Ideally we all produce what we can produce and eat what we need. But everyone knows this doesn't happen. Some people only take, and many who could produce more produce just enough for themselves because aside from altrusim/idealism there's no incentive to produce more. Highly oversimplified, but that's how I see it.
With open source software, there is no physical product. Software, unlike corn, can be perfectly copied ad infinitum at no incremental cost. (If you're picky you could argue about CDRs or bandwidth costing money, but that's not the software, and there are many ways to replicate software, and every computer owner can use at least one of those ways at no- or negligible incremental cost.) Everyone can use the product produced to be enough for one person. As long as a few people are willing to produce enough for one to use then everyone else can just take. Again, that's oversimplified.
This makes it hard to equate with communism and hard to work into capitalism because you have a sought-after product with no intrinsic value. Open source works great here, but companies that are used to charging you for each copy of software and for how many people use it (per-seat, per-concurrent-user and per-connection licensing) are having trouble dealing with the technology-induced revenue reduction.
It seems to me to be very similar to home tape recorders and commercial music where it became cheaper to make your own copy than to buy it from the original distributor. We're still wrestling with that issue. And no, that's not the same as buying discount corn from Mr. Shady who stole from Mr. Smith's farm. I can listen to arguments as to why it's also wrong, but it's not the same thing.
IBM has said absolutely nothing, not a goddamn thing about this whole issue; which is good. Yet SCO has all this stuff which is "pretty damaging" to Linux and I've yet to see anything from SCO at all. Amendments, contracts, documents; actual proof. None of it has really been seen by any expert, semi-expert or person in the know at all. Laura Didio's opinion is a joke, put's herself in a bad position (ie: who wants to hire a senior analyst who was wrong on an issue like this?) industry wise and opens herself up to legality issues.
Not only that but she dropped a hint when she just mentioned the word annotation. Simply go to www.tuhs.org and go through all the old BSD/Unix code to make sure none of the same comments exist in Linux in any harmful manner up to January 2002 which is when the last snapshot was taken.
I'd suspect that by now.. someone other than Laura Didio who clearly doesn't have the expertise to make such a conclusion will come forward with some relative comments backing statements like the one's shes made. Almost one week into the month and still it's the same ole smoke screen from SCO and still the same garbage. At this point i'd take a RedHat newbie over people like Laura Didio.
I thought that the point was to have some sort of idea if it was actually SCO stuff.
And *then* they gotta prove that IBM were the people who put it in there in the first place.
I've still seen no evidence remotely persuasive of that possibility.
If the worst case scenario pans out and it turns out that SCO is right, will everyone then migrate to FreeBSD? ;P
Is it just me, or did anybody else actually read through the press release:
The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner of the UNIX operating system, helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses...[yada yada yada]...
I wasn't aware that the Open Group just up and died...
Behold, the power of fleas...
In all of the talk about SCO showing their "proof", I seem to have missed any discussion of the chain of evidence that would actually substantiate this "proof". Think about it. Suppose you sign SCO's NDA and they show you two printouts, one labelled "SCO Unix" and one labelled "Linux", and they've carefully highlighted similar sets of code. In what way does that demonstrate the exhibit A actually came from SCO Unix, and exhibit B came from the Linux kernel tree?
In order to accept their exhibits, not only would I have to see them check their code out of their repository, I'd need to see the repository logs for how and when that code first got into that file in that repository. And keep in mind, someone with enough time and desire can fake a repository log, so I'd need to audit their repository looking at timestamps and comparing build results against delivered products (after all, who's to say that the file in question is even used by a build?). This will quickly devolve into an exercise in my-expert-says/your-expert-says.
At least with Linux, I (or anyone) can go to kernel.org and download subsequent snapshots until I come to a pair, one with and one without the code in question. This works because anyone can make a mirror of the kernel snapshots, and comparing your snapshot against my snapshot is straight-forward and proveable. Don't trust the kernel.org servers? Start picking up old CD-ROM Distribution sets and extract the kernel source.
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
Moreover, the nonfunctional elements of the code, such as comments, cannot be trade secrets because these elements are minimal and confer no competitive advantage on Defendants.
That blows a hole in SCO's position that they can't reveal infringing sections because it would damage their trade secret status.
The comments are already *not* trade secret, so how's about showing them to the journalists, Darl?
-
Are these people insane? Linux is a boon to humanity. Anyone who can't see that is blind. If Linux is communism, it's time to take another look at communism, because it looks to me like a beautiful thing.
I would strongly recommend having that "another look" at communism before saying that it looks like a beautiful thing.My wife and her family suffered, as have millions of others, under the terror of "beautiful" communism. She was taken from her family and put into a child labor/indoctrination camp. Her father died in Cambodia seeking to find food and a way over the mountains to Thailand. His crime: being educated; see, that's unfair and uncommon.
I love Linux. Even GNU/Linux. I love Open Source. Even Free Software. But I hate communism. So should you.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
While annoying, this could have far greater impact on our lives than the OJ Simpson trial could have ever had. If SCO goes through court and wins, it could not only effect current and future Linux implementations but cast a black cloud over any Open Source project. If they go through and lose Open Source projects may still suffer, or may not depending on the public spin, but the length of the case may still kill promising projects. If IBM decides to just pay them off then it still would vindicate the claims and have the same negative results.
I'd agree that daily updates and the press conferences are getting tedious, but the eventual result is a lot more important to me than whether O.J. is locked away on the taxpayers dime or hanging out on the dime of those buying his book, or however he's getting his money now.
For my two cents, the fact that comments are the same doesn't really mean much here. If the code around the comments was the same, or even similar, why wasn't that mentioned? Comments I've seen generally have two functions. One, serve as an outline of the flow that is going on, used by people who like to comment or wrote them in first from an outline/plan. Or two, a detailed explanation of a single line, when it's a clever way of doing something quickly that isn't immediately intuitive. Comments in the first category can easily look alike between implementations of standard processes.
The third type of comment are the 'Why is this code here?'/'This code is never executed' lines, which I'm guessing wouldn't make it through an actual review process.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
Why is this funny? I can see someone like Microsoft doing exactly that.
Indeed. It is "heads on pikes" time. If SCO isn't shut down hard the next fucked company that tries this might have the sense to start small with his lawsuits instead of going right for IBM. It would NOT be good if they were able to win a lot of small victories by forcing settlements with companies that can't afford a lawsuit.
--- Mod me up, or I'll throw my Xbox at you.
Hey, I didn't mod you up! Throw your Xbox at me! I could use one! Don't be surprised when I start running with it instead of throwing it back!
Does it have a mod chip?
A solution to the problem with music today
It bears importantly on the discussion. See if you can figure out why.
Don't fucking cencor people. You don't have to quote them if you don't like what they are saying.
Even at that, I doubt any non-programmer could reliably guess at the *direction* of the code transfer. Caldera/SCO was actively doing development work with Unixware and Linux together. I'd guess that there is considerable GPL'd code in Unixware that nobody would have called them on before this.
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
I suggest you, too, take another look at communism, especially since like most people you equate it with what the likes of Stalin and Mao brought about.
Cool!
Did he take it under the wires or go inverted in the turns?
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
But doesn't that C logo look like the top of mickey's head?
I think this is where their MPAA tactics could be coming from.
I thought along these lines after the Columbia Space Shuttle Accident. I asked myself, if in 1969, if we (the USA) were able to men on the moon, then why haven't we (humans) been able to travel to other planets yet?
The answer is back then is that the nation had a common goal to put a man on the moon. It didn't really matter how much the scientists that made it happen were being paid, they did it because they had dreams worth fighting for. Today, without a common goal and money clouding our vision, we have no focus to send a person to Mars or other planets.
The parent post to this article reminds me of how I felt shortly after the Columbia accident. I believe Linux and Open Source software represent the dreams of many whose energy is focused on one common goal. In that way it is very similiar to the energy of the space program in the 1960s. SCO is the destroyer of dreams and again it is because of money.
Open source has the ability to put less fortunate people on a level playing field with others in the Global society. I remember telling myself this when the World Wide Web was first commercialized.
I believe SCO has a right to protect its IP, but it doesn't have the right to destroy the reputation of open source software. It should be aware that it not only suing IBM, but also destroying the dreams of the many, just so that the few can fill their mouths with left over cookie mix from the bottom of the mixing bowl.
Sorry for the rambling...
andrew
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
That's a nice theory. Wrong, but a nice theory none the less. See dictionary.
Bullsh*t.
They have to reveal the relevant information to the other party of the suit in a reasonable timeframe. This is called DISCOVERY and it's a legal requirement. They can't avoid it.
The big guns at IBM will have PLENTY of time to mull over the evidence.
SCO's current actions primarily prevent corrective action being taken. It also allows SCO to hide any weaknesses in their case from the general public.
SCO's bluff is completely irrelevant to their case against IBM.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
So what if SCO actually wins this thing? The code in question is a trade secret, once its out of the bag it doesn't matter if its in linux source code or not. IBM will give SCO large int amount of money, and life will go one as usual, its not like SCO can go around sueing everyone that uses linux or bought linux in good faith. Hell, SCO continued to sell linux for quite sometime after they decided their IP was in it, so its obviously not that big of a deal to them. They just want some money from IBM to keep them afloat a while longer.
Were the comments in French?
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
There is a possibility that one or more Linux developers got some code from UNIX system V. I think so because not all the programmers are familiar with the copyright law. You see, there is a general belief the patents expire, and that is true, but the copyrights will NOT expire in our lifetime. It is theoretically possible that one particular developer saw the copyright notice on a 25 years old piece of UNIX code so he might think that copyright expired. I do agree there is just a small chance, but it is possible.
Many people ask why SCO do not reveals the code in question. That is because they do not want that code to be removed at this time. Some of us said they will have to show the code in the court anyway and after that the code would be replaced very fast. That is a possible scenario... but what if it will be to late ? I will explain...
I believe the most serious claim is that Linux is an illegal derivative of UNIX. It looks strange to us but I think there is a chance to convince a judge/jury. If some of THEIR code was copied in the key parts of the kernel, let say I/O or TCP stack, and they will show the kernel do not work without that code they have a case... saying that Linux is an illegal derivative of UNIX.
Yes, it is true they may have only few hundreds of lines of UNIX system V in the Linux kernel and the kernel has more than 3 million of lines, but if they show they are in the key parts of the kernel they may convince a judge/jury they own the copyrights for central parts of the kernel and Linux exist just because of their code.
Secondly, IT DOES NOT really matter who owns the UNIX System V copyrights. Even if the owner is our friend now it might turn against us in the future.
We can not simply assume this is going to end like AT&T vs. BSDI because we can not take the risk... they have nothing to lose, but we have.
I think we must act now... I think we have to start auditing the code and to try to find out ANY proprietary code in the kernel before the trial. I do know some may certainly believe that is irrelevant because we do not have their source tree commit dates and the code may be ours anyway. That is certainly right, but I still think we have to try.. at least we will see how many similarities we have and since we know who wrote almost any part of our code we probably clarify most of it.
We will not be able to trace the code which is "trade secret" (developed by IBM and SCO) so some of us will think this is useless. Maybe.. maybe not... because it is not the same think to have 20 lines or 200 lines of proprietary code in the kernel.
I DO NOT want to say they have a case but we have to put the worst things first...
So, who wants to help please write to spaniard@softhome.net to discuss modus operandi.
How much jail time did whoever edited the phony videotape evidence in the Microsoft trial serve?
-- Alastair
Regarding analyst comments from the likes of Yankee, Gartner, etc... not worth much.
I used to deal with them as a client. Some are good, but the vast majority are very inexperienced. They don't stay around very long, just a couple of years at most, not enough to really understand the industry or technology they are supposed to be covering.
And then there's the agency problem... they all drum up business with the very companies they cover. Basically, they aren't much better than the average hooker for hire. They'll tell you what want to hear if you pay them enough.
- I suggest you, too, take another look at communism, especially since like most people you equate it with what the likes of Stalin and Mao brought about.
Wrong, bucko. Learn it, live it, love it.pax
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
For the humor imparied: It's a joke! Not a suggestion. Geeze.
What proof have we seen that SCO didn't put the code there themselves? They were, after all, a contributor to Linux. Do they know if one of their developers is responsible for this?
If so could some guy at SCO be cowaring over his computer thinking "Gee I shouldn't have put that code in there. I hope no one figures it out."
Also what proof is there that they code is actually the same? The "analyst" is admittedly not qualified to review the code.
Later, GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
How does SCO prove that the code in question is actually not borrowed from Linux or some other common source? How do they prove its their code and they had it first?
I think all the cloak and dagger means that they have something to hide...
The RSA patents and Unisys's LZW patents both were valid from my point of view. I don't know if there were patents on Diffie-Hellman key exchange (if yes, they have expired), but that also would have been a worthy software patent. Yes, Unisys mishandled the patent badly, but the original algorithm definitely was non-obvious and innovative.
Borderline cases (that, as far as I know have not been patented): Splay trees, A* algorithm.
Of course nowadays you can get a patent on "Doing X with a computer" and "Doing X with the Internet", where X can be anything from selling candy to taking a dump.
As far as I can tell, while there are some worthy software patents, the vast majority is crap. And even the few valid patents cover algorithms that would have been developed either way, so the patent system is not "promoting science and the useful arts" in the softeware field.
Stephan
Actually, it would be like asking an English reading judge to determine plagerism in a Chineese manuscript.
Assuming, of course, that he can't also read in Chineese.
Read, L
... they pry the keyboard from my cold dead fingers.
SCO, MS, and anyone else who advocates such material breach of business ethics, whether self-inflicted or intent on others, should be hauled out, stipped naked, and caned by a very disgruntled Thai corrections officer in the middle of downtown Redmond.
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
She's the one who ordered her slaves to burn her alive on a funeral pire as a signal of spite and hatred to her former lover Uni^H^H^H Ulyses? Or was that SCO? Oh well, so much for her reputation. I suppose she'll just ride that M$ desktop down the rest of her career.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Can BSD code be "stolen?"
Doesn't the license let you do
anything with it except delete
or change the copyright?
Well, another scenario occurs to me, at this point:
IBM buys the pot, by buying SCO, just because its cheap. Microsoft gets a ride on the deal, and Novell does, too.
Later, IBM buys out Novell's IP rights to Unix, thereby leaving Microsoft beholding to IBM for all Unix rights they purchased (since IBM bought out SCO, previously) - leaving Microsoft's Services for Unix, et al, beholden to IBM... and wouldn't that be a nice turn of events?
Well, I can dream, can't I?
Couldn't agree more. I'm sick of all this......
Mod parent up. Even though I hate his sig.
Open source software represents freedom - as perhaps nothing else in human experience. It IS the freedom of speech in the modern world. While I don't fault the original poster for making a comparison between Linux and communism, I am compelled to point out the weaknesses of that comparison.
The real problem with communism is that it is an answer to a question that nobody is asking. The question for humanity, now and always, is, "How can we be free from opression and tyranny?" communism, however, answers this question: "What governmental system prevents opression and tyranny?" This is the same question Capitalism answers, which is why my sig does not contradict this post. The problem is not the style of the governmental system, but its scope. Any governmental system, if given enough power, will result in opression and tyranny, regardless of how that power is applied.
I came to this realization when discussing the American form of government. We (Americans) like to believe that America brought democracy to the world, and that it was this form of government that sparked a worldwide revolution for freedom. The problem is that democracy was nothing new. Just ask the Greeks, or the English, whose history demonstrates that they were already well on track for the same conclusion when we parted way. There was nothing unique about the structure and form of the American government. The only truly unique (if tragically ephemeral) thing about the American government was the extent to which that government was limited. It was that limitation that brought the really good things about America to be, and that is the only legacy of which Americans can take pride in giving the world.
The reality is that no one, capitalists nor communists, really want freedom. From where we sit in the USA, it is very easy to see Linux as a champion for the common man in a world dominated by evil giant business interests. On the other side of the world, however, from behind the great firewall of china, things look quite differently. No one in power, no matter what color uniforms their stormtroopers wear, wants us to have the freedom Linux represents.
I think that it is important to remember that freedom does not derive from how well thought out your government is. Freedom does not come from government. The two are fundamentally and forever opposed.
Buisness week caters to people who wish they were the boss. Actual leaders know to trust people who know better for technical decisions. Places where the big dogs reach down to make other people's decisions based on tripe like that don't last long.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Yes, Unisys mishandled the patent badly, but the original algorithm definitely was non-obvious and innovative.
I agree that they are probably valid patents, but there should be laws against Indian giving. The FTC or WTO should have stepped up to the plate and said, "Release the LZW patent or you are out of business." Unisys perpetrated harm onto the computing industry through fraud. "Oh, it's free, not it's not, yes it is, pay me."
Linux is fundemently good for humanity.
But what happens if ALL software is free? At that point, all programmers become hobbyist. Software inovation slows to a crawl. Talented programmers are now finding other ways to make a living, and skills are wasted.
- Is the initial benefit to society of free software nullified?
- Is it worth stagnating to "level the playing field"?
Moraly, yes it is. But that is a scary thought...
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
Why would a company sue unless it has at least something to base its case on?
Companies lie, cheat, and steal every day!
But more to the point, Bill Gates & Co. have paid SCO millions to FUD linux. That is the whole point to this exercise. The irony is that in the end it will prove that GNU/Linux is not legally incumbered IP, thanks to IBM's awesome legal team and the hard work of GNU hackers.
Personally, if I owned any boxen with SCO on 'em, they'd be SCO 'libre' PDQ.
I urge all SCO customers to do the same. SCO has no legitimacy and no further reason for existence.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
where is the EFF (aka Richard Stallman) in all this?
I haven't heard a peep about this group and these regards.
I figure someone big enough should just sue SCO out of existance so we can get on with our lives....
But I will say, this has been the most entertaining fun I've had in months....
>You can't just burn. You have to remember to salt.
carthago delenda est!
This is the whole problem. SCO is not interested in having Linux developers rewrite code to get rid of these infringements. They want to *kill* linux altogether. Otherwise they would have already contacted developers and demand that the code be pulled. The shroud of secrecy the SCO is projecting does not indicate that they are interested in a real resolution. The longer they can use fear, uncertainty, and doubt, the better for them. This whole case reaks of dishonesty, or at least amorality.
>Back in my day I had to write games in BASIC, on a 4.7Mhz computer with no hard disk and 128K of RAM. And I was grateful
:) great sig... thanks.
I should hope you were greatful. I had to write in basic, drop into the machine code "monitor" and change memory byte by byte to get it to skip around video memory so that drawing on the screen didn't overwrite code, on a 1 Mhz machine and I had 48K of RAM and I was happy to get it!
(now all we need is someone to come about how lucky we were... them and their audio cassette based file system had it much harder)
-pyrrho
"We don't need the play-by-play for this anymore than we needed it for the OJ Simpson trial..."
Especially when they don't link to SCO's website every time so it gets slashdotted every time.
When it appears SCO doesn't own the copyrights they say they're not important; business contracts are. Now that it appears they do hold
copyrights to sys V they're saying holding the
rights will bolster there case. Which is it?
So there were female samurai?
You forgot that stealing requires the transfer of posession of an object without the owner's consent. It's not stealing - it's copyright infringement!
confidential business proposal
i am barrister david boies and i am represtenting a nigerian firm in the
matter of the transfer of a large sum of moneys. this sum, $1,000,000,000
(one billion u.s.) is from the estate of a mr. thomas watson, deceased
ceo of the u.s. firm of ibm. our client, the lagos cruise operation (lco)
of lagos, nigeria, is a locally chartered cruise ship operator. we are
suing ibm on behalf of our client to recover the moneys from the aforesaid
estate which was promised to us in a contract with ibm giving ibm the
rights to develop and market eunuchs african tours. the management of
ibm reneged on the agreement by stealing our intelligent properties and
we are understandably annoyed over this but are responding by making
threats and filing frivolous lawsuits at the high court in lagos, nigeria.
kindly provide us with a bank account where we can transfer the moneys
gained from our frivolous litigation. for your services we can promise
you 28.8 million as a transfer fee.
strict confidentiality is necessary to evade the clutches of an
international consporacy known as "linux" which seeks to deprive our
client of its fair share of the proceeds.
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
In the first example, you return 1 if a and b are both not zero.
In the second example, you return 1 if either a (inclusive) or b are not zero.
Lose a pipe from the second example to do bitwise or.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Let's see what the OED has to say:
A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants.
Now, as far as I can see, it doesn't advocate killing and opressing people, or torturing those who disagree, or supressing free thought. Just because a duck is a bird and can fly, does not mean a penguin can fly because it is a bird. Communism is not inherently evil. If anything, it aspires to good.
However, I don't believe Communism really works in real life. Software is different, as you can make a copy to give to someone without it affecting you. In the real world though, people who lust for power hijack Communist ideals and corrupt them for their own purposes. Then again, there have been very very few successful revolutions that don't end up corrupted. The US did very well, but then it was fighting an essencially foreign foe, and, offhand, is the only one I can think of that worked (which speaks very well indeed of the US founding fathers, I think). Can you name any other revolutions that haven't resulted in corrupt leaders afterwards?
A communist dictatorship is still a dictatorship. There's nothing about communism that forbids free elections and a fair constitution that promotes freedom and equality.
Communism, at least given its common, Marxist, definition, inherently removes the fundamental right to private property from every individual. It thus makes slaves of the entire populace to whatever government is administering it, whether large or small.
That is not to say that big-corporate capitalism is a good thing, as that too takes away the private property of the individual, but communism does it more thoroughly and more methodically. Being a slave to the state is not better than being a wage-slave.
It's tough to buy SCO Hostile-style... their float is less than 30% of the total shares. Check SCOX at Yahoo... the profile has the data. 12.something million shares outstanding, 3.something million floated. Unless somebody inside sells, hostile takeover won't work.
if (empty)
return 1;
Oddly enough this was the same code that the SCO Lawsuit Generator used to check the corporate payroll account before starting this whole lawsuit to begin with...
Overall, if some code was 'stolen' then I think SCO has an IP claim and should legitimately be compensated forthwith. But I think I'm beating a dead horse when I say that this whole thing is fishy and I doubt SCO has any legitimate claim. In order to prove to me that the code in question was stolen, I would have to: a) see the code b) learn how the code itself was generated. I have one of those feelings that the code in question is going to be ludicrously common and will probably have been copied from another piece of code to begin with. These are all questions outside of the Novell claim that SCO doesn't own the copyright anyways, which seems to be a valid argument.
This is why I should have gone to law school instead of getting into computers. =)
"But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" - Dennis Miller
Anyone remember more about this?
Cheers,
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
Tintin?
Seriously though, if she can read, she can compare two samples of source.
She sure seems to have a wide range of experience in analystism, though...
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
Or how about ...
Would they be deemed similar to someone who wasn't familiar to the source code.
Any fool knows that you spell faking with a 'K', not a 'C' as you have obviously done by accident.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
But then AI^Hnaeas wouldn't fit as well.
I'm sure she'll do well enough out of rewriting press releases, though - or do analysts actually ever do proper research?
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
Speaking of interesting dogs,...
The offleash area where I take my dog, we often see a woman who has two dogs..
One is a Great Dane,
The other is a miniature Daschund.
Seeing her walk them together is the funniest thing I've ever seen.
Without registering, you have copyright already. But you can't bring a lawsuit for infringement with damages unless it is registered. Very relevant here.
So you hate communism, but you love it at the same time -- very Orwellian....
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
SCO insinuates that Stallman and Perens advocate breaking the law. I wonder, why wouldn't FSF or OSI request an immediate injunction stopping SCO's fraudulent behavior against the Linux community, as it was done in Germany?
Should computers be able to parse the phrase "police police police police"?
You can steal ideas, intellectual property, data, etc. It's still stealing even if tangible property is not involved.
[ Actually this page reports it as .0001$/share. So he picked all 32885 shares for about $32. ]
Try $3.29 sucker.
Not again! This is the second time I see the file sco.c mentioned as an example of a file lifted from SCO's source code. It isn't!
Has nobody bothered to look at the code yet, and done some googling?! In the sco.c file, SCO refers to a "Synchronous Connection Oriented" link.
If you don't beleive me, then here's the entry in Palowireless' Bluetooth glossary. Didn't anybody here find the notion of having a source code file named after a particulary Unix brand a tad odd? At least odd enough to investigate a little further?
Herman Robak
herman@skolelinux.no
Skolelinux, Linux for Schools
In one of the articles Novell spokesperson states that Novell believes the amendment has a vaild Novell signature.
Actually he stated that it appeared to have one. He made no comment on whether he believed it to be genuine, just on the appearance.
...is exactly how you said, expensive, fraught with all sorts of pitfalls.
WHERAS, the burning bag of dog poop and ringing the door bell and running away giggling is still *quite cheap*.
DISCLAIMER
closed track, professional comedian, don't try this at home, void and illegal everyplace, for literary amusement only.
Even I don't think SCO is that stupid.
That Sir, is where you are mistaken.
In Jellystone Park the sign says:
Don't Feed the Bears!
Same thing. Less poetic perhaps.
I like your style pal. RSA and Diffie Helman would also have been my secret candidates but I dont see how Rivest Shamir etc profited from their US patent. Could they not have made the same impact without a patent?
BTW, the moderators here have a sick sense of humour. How do you get a +5 rating for Funny with you post? :-)
Greeting from the hood. I am located in Ulm so happy trails Schulz;-)
The good lady says she's recommending that companies using AIX or Linux systems from IBM check the fine print in their contracts to see how well they're covered against potential claims from SCO Group. "Then I'd talk to IBM and say, 'How are you going to help me out?'"
As I said yesterday, #6127897 it't time for Big Blue to step up and take action to stop SCO's momentum.
Backward%20compatibility%20is%20over-rated
The difference between communism and "Communism" is an important one, but is often overlooked. Mostly this is because all the fully communistic states have also been brutal, repressive regimes.
Little 'c' communism just means that wealth is redistributed in a supposedly rational manner, so that everyone has enough and nobody has too much. It is theoretically possible to implement such a system within a democratic nation with strong protections for minority rights. Perhaps heavily socialized countries like Sweden could serve as evidence that such a system is possible.
On the other hand, one could argue that it's impossible to implement communism without giving the government an unconscionable amount of control over everyday life.
Any political system that doesn't respect the individual's right to dissent is ultimately worthless. That, in my mind, is why Communism so thoroughly sucked.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Ok, lets SCO fight for that...
*BSD family now!
Delenda est SCO. (Thus SCO must be destroyed.) - Cato the Coder
Defendi linuxum adulescens, non deseram senex. (I defended linux as a young man, I shall not desert it in my old age.)
- Codero
Veni, Vidi, Vili (I came, I saw, I wrote Linux) - Linus Caeser
How do we know for sure that it wasn't the other way around? Like someone from SCO breaking the GPL and using the code from Linux, and not the other way around? And if this were to happen, how are we to know which happened first? (i.e. the Linux code was produced first and someone from SCO copied it verbatim)
McBride steps up to the plate.
Swing and a miss. Strike one.
McBride hasn't had a great year, but hes been hot the last couple of weeks. It looks like hes been rejuvinated by his new contract.
High and inside. Ball one.
If McBride doesn't perform he may not last the season.
Heres the wind up, and the pitch...
McBride hits a hard line drivel deep into left field right along the baseline.
Iggy Blue is moving to cover... and he BOBBLES the ball!
McBrides heading for second!
Jose Novellus is backing up Iggy.
Novellus picks up on the bounce.
McBrides rounding second!
Novellus throws to 'Ol Ben Source.
Its going to be close.
McBride slides... Ben Source swipes...and... McBRIDE IS OUTTA THERE!
HOLY COW!
It must be a sign of the devil.
Yeah the comments at the top of both files say :
(C)Copyright 19xx Regents of the University of California.
Wrong, bucko.
You shall know the tree by its fruit.
Thus far, as a percentage, the primary fruit of republican democracy (the American choice) is the Roman empire, which is in human history unique in both its eventual level of tyrrany and its incredible reach.
In fact, many of Rome's favorite slogans can be heard today in America -- "there has never been a society like this one, grand and successful expirement, before...", "we will bring our superior, liberating way of life to everyone", "we will put down the actions of malcontents [read: terrorists] who hate the empire and would destroy the freedoms that it gives us", "those who resist our armies are merely too simple to comprehend what we would offer to them", and "so long as we continue to have the might to make the world a 'better place', we should make use of it."
Of course, we all know what happened to Rome, the worlds first great republic and still the longest-lasting and farthest-reaching, in the end. Perhaps more telling (since it is essentially inevitable that every society, no matter how structured, will fall) to note the way in which Rome is viewed by history...
"The SCO trademark is clearly a depiction of a planet with a single red continent and a blue Mickey-Mouse-shaped ocean," charged Jimminy Cricket at a press conference late Friday.
"Uuuuhhh, yup! Looks like Mickey t' me," added Goofey. "At least ya caught his good side, hyuck."Mickey, the ever-cheerful Mouse was not offended, however, and offered a concilliatory, "Ah shucks, guys, why can't we all just get along?"
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
She used to work for Giga Information Group. It's good to see that SCO is letting reporters see the code.
She's read a lot about computers.
Look, I'm not a Linux kernel developers, but I'm pretty bright, and I've coded for 20 years.
I can tell if someone is trying to shit me or tell me the truth.
I guess they won't let me look then...
I hope Laura can give great blow jobs, because it appears she couldn't find computer code if it was held between her ass cheeks with paper clips.
Hey if anyone has the Audio for this let me know where to find it.
"They believe code produced for Project Monterey has made it into Linux. This still seems sketchy since it would assume that IBM signed some agreement before hand that they had no rights to the code (which they were co-developing with SCO and some other company IBM bought) outside of that particular project."
I have no firsthand knowledge, but I think that the company you are speaking of that partnered on AIX was Sequent. I have been told that the IBM/Sequent developers that worked on AIX with SCO went on to work at the IBM funded Open Source Development Labs. I'm not clear if the timeline fits what SCO is alleging, but these developers would have had the means, opportunity, and motive to put elements from the SCO code that they worked with into Linux. I'm not saying they did, because I wouldn't know.
But even if they can hurt IBM for contract violation, I still don't see how they can hurt Linux. They distributed Linux even after they found code they claim is theirs in it. So either they turned the code free themselves at that point, or they violated the GPL and Linus, et al can sue them for copyright violation. That GPL is such a thing of beauty.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
News Flash: Disney is sueing SCO because their logo looks like a Mickey Mouse shadow on a globe.
but I dont see how Rivest Shamir etc profited from their US patent.
They made a lot. A whole lot. I would guess well into 7 figures, maybe even 8. Between the RSA patent, the DH patent, and a couple of others, RSA DSI got money from each and every commercial user of public key cryptography in the United States for nearly 15 years. That is a LOT of dough, and I suspect as founders, they made some pretty good $$$. Rivest most of all, since he is more actively involved in the company -- Shamir and Adleman have remained mostly in the academic world, but I'm sure they get nice checks in the mail every few months.
(quite possibly orignally stolen from BSD)
/. reader you should remember
How can you steal something that's given away for free?
Duh. Have you ever bothered to READ the BSD licence?
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
How is removing the copyright notice *NOT* theft?
Now, as a loyal
Slashdot story of wholesale OpenBSD theft
Slashdot story about Linux kernel stealing BSD code
And 2.0.X GNU/Linux kernel has a file where the BSD copyright is removed and the comment ADMITS to removing it and putting a GPL licence in its stead. So its not like Caldera/SCO's claim of misapproperated code is unheard of.
Only funny if you remember the scene.
Help fight continental drift.
maybe you copyed the comments and rewrote the code
and i think if they had something "hard" like copied code they would state it clearly or even show it
i think it's more something someone at IBM could have seen and now there is the same function in the linux kernel added by someone from IBM
stop supporting microsoft with pirating their software!!!!!
No. It's not. You're acting like the guy in "1984" who just couldn't wait to cut words out of the English language. We have perfectly good words to describe various forms of intellectual dishonesty or unauthorized duplication of works without conflating something like copying an mp3 with grand theft auto.
We don't need to resort to pretending that copying something is the same as stealing something for copying something to be wrong.
I do not have a signature
SCO isn't basing its legal action on copyright infringement. It's based on a broken contract between (now) itself and IBM. Different rules here, bub. Patents and whatnot are hard, but contracts are very clear and no /. crying and whining will change that.
How would a non-programmer know what a comment is or what it looks like? Why not tell someone who doesn't know Chinese to compare two documents in Chinese, and ask if they say the same thing? The results would be unreliable at best.
I bet if you ask the "non-programmer corporate analyst" if the comments were the same, you'd get "what the hell is a comment?"
IBM and Novell are denying it too. Are they also crazy?
If this case goes to trial, you can bet that the jury will be made up of non-programmers.
SCO cares a great deal about what a non-programmer thinks about two side-by-side excerpts of code.
Would you want Linux to help humanity by trampling on the rights of another entity? I don't believe SCO's claims have any merit but I also wouldn't support somebody like yourself who seems to be claiming "it's OK to infringe on SCO's copyright because Linux is good for humanity".
You are advocating the ends justify the means no matter the cost. That's not something I can agree with. Linux needs to win fairly. I think it has won fairly and SCO is full of shit, but I still think SCO deserves their right to be heard.
Because businesses are fundamentally people working for a common goal. When you advocate the harm of businesses to further your own personal goals (Linux) then you are actually inflicting harm on individuals.
"you can patent a software invention"
There has never been software that has been written that is deserving of a patent.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Your example of a new algorithm is incorrect (or incomplete). An algorithm in the abstract that hasn't been put to a "practical application" is not patentable. Merely solving mathematical problems is not patentable. See section 800.IV of the manual of patent examining procedure.
With great power comes great fan noise.
now someone could say even the american revolution ended up corrupted or name the french on as uncorrupted
it is only a question of time until something you don't care ends up corrupted
maybe the russian where not used to care about their govt
the american on the other hand all left their homeland
and that means they cared
stop supporting microsoft with pirating their software!!!!!
FO shizzle my dlzzle. Laura dilzzo stole my IPizzile.
-- - MC Knuth
Any gloom that this casts on the OSS world will be short-lived. Remember how much market share OSS had when it first started. Compare that with now. Think
the "SCO Fiasco" will stop it's advance?
I can't afford a sig!
with Novel about small issues. But if you
look at the napkin they used during lauch, or
at receipt from 7-11, what is written could
(in SCO's opinion) be interpreted that on that day they
actually bough UNIX.
I still have the receipt from my grocery earlier
today, if Microsoft is willing to support my
cause and further their interests, I will soon
announce that they grocery receipt (when creatively interpreted)
is proof that I acually bought all 30,000 stores of this grocery chain. Good idea, McDonalds is next, Microsoft willing.
The original poster is not the only one guilty of hyperbole
But really, the original poster definitely has a point. Though the Ethiopian farmers care not for free operating systems, the schools and community centers would certainly be able to use it to tremendous advantage.
DeeK
"First, disclosure: I am short SCOX...", well, yeah, SCOX may still go higher in my opinion as a trader, up to $10-10.25. Weekly stochastic is still not at 100 pts, but if you're short already that wouldn't hurt much if one shorted it today, just be ready when a margin call comes, depending how many short shares you have. But the thing is that even if SCOX goes higher to $10.25 I wouldn't exit short position, because the next thing we know SCOX goes from $10.25 down to $5.00 and probably lower later. Timing? Around June 13 - July 3, 2003.
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
Does anybody know how far back the CVS logs go for the Linux kernel? Once SCO release the exact code that is in question, it will be interesting to go back and query exactly who submitted the patch to the kernel.
Then we can go to whoever submitted the patch, and find out if they wrote it from scratch. If they did, then I'd say SCO have just been busted big time for putting GPL code into their system.
And that would be a real shame, wouldn't it.
DeeK
And was the amendment in someone's FBI files?
As far as IBM employees using unix code into linux, IBM may end up settling with SCO or paying them penalties, whatever. What worries me is IBM settling in such a way that somehow infringes on/seeks to infringe on the "freedom" of Linux.
Since SCO is pursuing contract violations in court against IBM, the logical thing to do would be to start looking at patches submitted to the kernel by IBM employees. Next, determine if those patches could in any way be related to projects that IBM would have worked on with SCO (some people have made reference to Project Monterery--details?).
SCO can't seem to keep its story straight in the media regarding what, exactly, their legal beef with Linux is, but if I understand what I've heard, the actual legal case refers to IBM and contracts between the two. I doubt SCO could play the same game of rope-a-dope with the courts and expect to get off easy. SCO is not Microsoft.
Completely baseless speculation time:
It is entirely possible that IBM coders who worked on IBM's end of Monterery, or another joint project, submitted code that ended up in SCO's Unix codebase. Depending on the details of the contract, ownership of the code in question might be jointly controlled by SCO and IBM, with both parties doing whatever the hell they wanted with the results--relicence, use in other projects, whatever. Or, the contract(s) could be written to award ownership of code produced to SCO exclusively, although I couldn't see IBM getting into a deal where the other party gets all the results. The contract(s) could be vague enough, or tricky enough, that either, or even both, above situations could be legally true depending on who is interpreting the language. After Monterey collapsed, the hypothetical coders could have gone to work on IBM's Linux-related projects, submitting kernel patches based on code they wrote for Monterey. Since, in my hypothetical situation, IBM owned (or thinks it owned) the submitted code, the question of the patch being the same as code in SCO's source would not have come up. This could legitimately be a big misunderstanding.
I can't see IBM's legal team letting a mistake, or glaring hole in SCO's case, go unnoticed and unmentioned this long. It's possible, I just don't see it as likely. Therefore, I don't think my hypothetical situation is close to reality.
Is there a link to the court filings submitted so far? I'd love to skim over them and try to figure out just what the hell SCO is trying to claim in court, as opposed to whatever smoke and farts they're releasing in the media.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
it is only a question of time until something you don't care ends up corrupted
Equally, you could maintain that it's only a matter of time before something that has been corrupted becomes pure again.
Anyway, I was just talking about the immediate effects after the revolutions, say 10 or 20 years. Maybe even a few decades, a half century tops. Not over 200 years, which is, I think, a bit much.
Work out better for everyone in the long run? I am not so sure. If this thing drags out for a long period of time, then Linux is stuck in a kind of legal limbo for as long as the lawsuit lasts. Many businesses will shy away from using a product the legality of which is yet to be determined in court.
The court case might take a couple of years to work through. Okay, be ultra-pessimistic and say 5 years. He was talking about the long run. Worst case scenario you're talking about 5 years. I can see someone counting 5 years as medium run but honesty, long run? You have terminal cancer and three years to live or something?
Interestingly, I didn't see similar outrage about another instance of corporate/litigious "terrorism" in another topic (see here).
But then, it had nothing to do with Linux...
If you find that interesting then you'll be really fascinated to hear that people's reaction to their own children being kidnapped is stronger than to that of some stranger in a distant country.
It's almost as if people are more concerned when they have a stake in it themselves. You just may have discovered something that everyone else already took for granted.
(And no, Linux isn't equivalent to people's children, it's describing a principle for crying out loud, substitute anything else that people have a stake in versus something they don't. My company sacked half my friends in an appallingly callous way versus some company I'm only vaguely aware of doing the same thing. Comprehend?)
Listen.
All you guys are being a little reactionary. For a forum of smart people, this should be regarded as an insult. The only credible conspiracy theories in this case involve microsoft interests - this is reinforced by the fact that Bill Gates is the most paranoid American Leader since Nixon. But he's not young and smart enough to pull this off anymore.
Let's think creative legal -
If SCO looses this lawsuit, they stand to be liable for every dollar lost by every Linux vendor due to the malicious publicity they are spewing about. And I hope they are screwed deep into the infernal earth. If you want to hurt SCO where it counts, mail letters to their stockholders emphasizing this issue, just like they did to discredit IBM. A wall street selloff will sting far worse than a DDOS attack-
Very Catholic of you.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...was also missing any record of it. Curiouser and curiouser. Fraud squad, front and center!
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Isn't that against the rules?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
"I shall not presume"
"I shall not presume"
"I shall not presume"
"I shall not..."
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
This is, after all is said and done, law and not reality.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Not intentionally, anyway. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
They may well be that desperate. Desperate can be roughly equivalent to mindless.
I think I'll start encouraging other people to invite SCO to sue them - oops, too late.
Before SCO even do that, they have to serve notice on those people and give them a reasonable time to cease. Which to me sounds like a fine reason to update, no complaints there.
This is stating the obvious, but "cease further infringement" is precisely what the vast majority of Linux kernel developers are aching to do, if and when they are shown some genuine infringing code.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
No, I do not have terminal cancer, or "something". I think my point was that the cloud that a three to five year law suit would spread over Linux would do plenty of damage to Linux's momentum, and therefore to future adoption as well. It would provide a long opportunity for Microsoft to attack a weakened target, to say to businesses, "Don't use that operating system that might be full of pirated code and which might get you sued in the end. Use our nice, completely legal OS."
Of course the cloud will be lifted as soon as what code is offending is revealed to the Linux Kernel Powers That Be, but who knows how long SCO will be allowed to keep that secret, at least from Linus and company.
It brings computing services to people across the world who otherwise couldn't afford it or who otherwise would be sending money to multi-billionaire Bill Gates instead of buying food. Thanks to Linux, these people can spend their money on real things that they need, while still participating in the global exchange of ideas and perhaps getting a toe-hold in the "modern" western world that.
Yea, some kind of wonderous thing! One of a kind, that Linux thing?
That BSD thing I've heard of, it must not be able to do anyhting like that, as you neglected to mention it.
Read the grandparent post again. It says: SCO MUST be bankrupted as a result of this, no matter how much money it takes to do that in court!....Anything less encourages others to try the same style attack. (emphasis mine).
If a strangers' children are kidnapped in your town and nothing is done about it, your's may as well be next.
Comprehend?
Eaten Caldera from the inside and destroyed it. Caldera did actually contribute useful code to Linux under Ransom Love's "unification" programme, but alas, no more.
Of course, The SCO Group now has to prove that the code in question wasn't contributed by Caldera.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Welcome to an XboX in Western Australia!
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
That's the way Linux works. The overlap's not perfect, but at least there's less backstabbing, graft and general politics than in a purely greed-powered system. And things get done with unprecedented quickness.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
There are some things I violently disagree with you on, but here I'm in absolute, unqualified 100% agreement.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Are listed here, according to SCO.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I move to delete "almost" and "slashdot". (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Microsoft illegally distributed code from TimeLine Inc in SQL Server.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I wonder if they had to use a hairdryer on it before they started photocopying and faxing?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
IBM has enough on their plate right now. Novell should buy SCO or at least all rights to unix/UnixWare back and continue with their NetWare 7.0 linux-kernal strategy. Novell is a sound partner for the linux community--they've always shown pretty good judgement when it came to the right thing to do with products. It would probably boost Novell up a large notch as well as become more of a major player again.....
-m
http://www.invisik.com
> SCO code and Linux code include identical annotations made by developers
/* Try To Open The Data File */ /* If Failed */ /* Stop Here */ /* Return The Data File (Successful) */
> when they wrote the programs, says DiDio, who compares such notes to the
> signature or fingerprint of a developer's work.
I cannot buy that. Now, I can understand using someone's coding style to identify them (for example, you can do it with my code), but even this only works when you have a large amount of code to deal with. For example, you cannot say that I (or anyone else) comitted theft based on the following lines of code:
FILE *pFile = fopen( "test.bin", "r" );
if( !pFile )
{
ÂÂÂreturn( NULL );
}
return( pFile );
Just because those 6 lines of code could be seen elsewhere does not mean that anyone stole anything, even if those same lines were found multiple times. To say otherwise is NaÃve at best, and Negligent at worst.
Just my $0.02...
Peace!
-=- James.
This is not the same. Here's why: most non-programmers have read more than enough books (or other sources of common knowledge) to realize that ``once upon a time'' is a pretty common opening line. OTOH, they haven't read much (if any) software, so they don't know what kind of things are common. You can't always tell what's common, and what isn't, without actual knowledge of the space within which the things are to be common.
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
Hey guys, afterall it looks like SCO may have forged the claimed "amendment" and possibly some of the other documents they are presenting. Stay tuned for some big news. These guys are playing a dirty game -- is there anything we can do about them?...
What about Albania? I think that would be a lot better, the infrasructure is at the same level , but the laws are still from midle ages.
First of all, if you love Linux so much, can you kindly drop the communism tag. It is old, tired and untrue.
In a communism system all the means of production, and by extension, the products derived from them, belong to the state, wether you like it or not.
Linux as any other piece of GPLed software is a program to which people contribute by their own will (first big difference when tryign to make the communism crap stick to Linux) and to which they decide to donate time , effort and even money (not much unlike any charity, which in communists regimes did not exist).
The GPL is firmly based in copyright principles that were non existing in the communist world.
If you want to compare Linux favourably to anything think charity or NGO, but please don't help to spread a meme that only damages Linux reputation based on a patent false association.
Secondly, if you expect the Linux terms of copyright to be respected, you must be absoultely uncompormising about respecting the copyright of others.
Linux is not about infringing the copyright of anybody, no matter how altruistic the objectives. SCO, IBM, MS and any other company are fully entilted to their intellectual property and to make a buck out of it. We, the people [tm] are entitled to buy their products or to do the stuff ourselves if so we wish.
Tirades like the one you make in your post just give Linux and FLOSS a bad name and frankly are not welcomed.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Big deal. The witnesses will be programmers (well, maybe not SCO's witnesses :-)
Yes, people sue all the time without any basis. In civil litigation cases, the plaintiff (person who filed the case) controls the execution of the case to a large extent. The defendant, unlike in a criminal case, does not have the same right to a speedy trial. The plaintiff can also choose to accept a settlement, or have the case dismissed at any time without showing one iota of evidence (kinda like poker, you can keep betting until you decide it is too high, then fold, and no one can look at your cards) The judge may be able to refuse the dismissal but they rarely, if ever, do.
(Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm