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.
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
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
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.
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.
Giga information group rings a bell with me too, old MS yay and Apple/Linux/everything else nay sayers :)
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']
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."
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
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.
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
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
How many ways can someone write comments that describe a common process. Since the reviewer is a non programmer he could be missing the boat here.
:-/
I mean, if you are trying to code something by the book (whatever book you had at school that told you how to write an OS) I can expect that a fellow programmer in a different part of the world working on the same problem (educated by the same book) probably would have very similar comments throughout their source listing.
Of course - this adda a new layer to "intelecual property," I am sure Mr. Knuth is running to the patent office right now to lock down your problem solving and commenting processes and syntax structure.
Also how does one verify those comments were in the original SCO stuff (you can't de-compile comments...).
)
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
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!
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?
Comments are often a good way to tell lifted code.
Things like two spaces between certain words, mispelings, Weird Capitilization, etc.
Those are the kinds of things that are most damning.
In college, my roommate and I worked on a project for a programming class together. It was three parts, the last part was the largest part of your grade. We worked together for the first two parts, but I did all the work. He literally didn't write one line of code. I think he might have tried to write some header or something, that I wound up heavily changing anyway.
Anyway, so I told the professor about it, and asked that we work seperately on the final part. I got the project nearly completed, and I could tell from his testing that he wasn't getting nearly anywhere. Then near the time to turn in the project, suddenly his version had nearly all the features mine had.
I told the professor right away, and it almost went to honor court, but the professor didn't want to press it, he said it would mostly be his word against mine, etc..
Anyway, the bottom line is, the most compelling evidence of code theft was mispellings and other things of that sort in comments and variable names.
Having the exact same esoteric bugs is also pretty compelling.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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?
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?
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
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.
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
But the SCO UnixWare and Linux kernels are not much like eachother, really.
.h files are the same... (thus pumping up SCO's stock price, even though they don't have a case...)
Any code would _have_ to be heavily altered to work, without a general in-kernel compatiblity layer. Like SCO claimed to have in development for UnixWare, but Linux never bothered with at the kernel level.
So, if anything, presence of any non-trivial common code amount (more than 10% of total code is a typical U.K. metric, no doubt U.S. lawyers use a much smaller percentage to create more lawsuits) suggests that SCO took Linux code, which would then have been able to work within UnixWare via their compatiblity layer - going the other way, code from UnixWare to Linux wouldn't work, because the code would need to either be rewritten or interface to a non-existent "UnixWare Kernel Source Compatibility Layer".
Alternatively, it could be Linux SysV interfaces in header files - and interface-definitions in header files are not usually copyrightable, as demonstrated in several cases. Someone under NDA, without programming knowledge, will happily agree the
And all this is notwithstanding the civilised idea that the burden of proof should fall on the accuser (SCO).
The whole thing is stock-market manipulation anyway. SCO should be dissolved.
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
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)
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.
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...!?!?
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.
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.
But consider a case of sabotage where the copyright or patent owner place a plant within the developers. That developer gains the trust of fellow developers to the point he or she has access to the CVS tree and after awhile starts the copying and pasting. How can any of the other developers know its proprietary? They can't because the original code is proprietary.
How much jail time did whoever edited the phony videotape evidence in the Microsoft trial serve?
-- Alastair
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
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
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"?