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.
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.
Giga information group rings a bell with me too, old MS yay and Apple/Linux/everything else nay sayers :)
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']
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."
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
"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."
// This section lifted from the BSD networking code...
That would be pretty interesting. If the comments are worded the same, that could be pretty convicing evidence.
Yeah, but it said....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
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.
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!
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
That would be pretty interesting. If the comments are worded the same, that could be pretty convicing evidence.
Similar comments makes this case sound a lot like the USL vs. BSDI case. Unix version 32V is effectively public-domain.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
"To Novell's knowledge, this amendment is not present in Novell's files"
l
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030606/sff034_1.htm
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.
> That would be pretty interesting. If the comments are worded the same, that could be pretty convicing evidence.
:-) */"
Unless in the SCO Group's code there's plenty of examples like this one from lib/vsprintf.c --
``/* Wirzenius wrote this portably, Torvalds fucked it up
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
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)
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
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
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
<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.
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
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
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...!?!?
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!!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Boycott? I thought that required actual paying customers? I thought the last time SCO had any of those was First Quarter of 2001...
"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"?
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
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