Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Shows 80 Lines of Evidence?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the to-an-independant-analyst dept.

cheesybagel writes "In this EETimes article SCO claims to have shown their evidence to our independent analyst friends from the Aberdeen Group. The evidence, all 80 lines of it, allegedly even has identical comments."

940 comments

  1. When... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    will this end?

    1. Re:When... by I_Want_This_ID · · Score: 5, Funny

      ##loop for(i=0; i100; i++) { ##really common algorithm ... } SCO: Look, they copied our f'ing code

    2. Re:When... by nickos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When the Linux community finds out which lines are alleged to have been copied. Then we can use source control to find out who added them.

      Look - lines 2022 to 2102 were added by... Caldera!?!

    3. Re:When... by rwise2112 · · Score: 1
      My God, that's brilliant!!!

      I'm going to start using that in my programs, but of course I'll change it to:
      loop for(j=0; j<=100; j++)"


      so that SCO will never know!
      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    4. Re:When... by antirename · · Score: 1

      Forget the 80 lines of code... I'm just wondering who threatened the drive by shooting mentioned in the article? Is someone keeping a geek or two in a basement somewhere and depriving them of caffeine for this purpose? Not that I would have a problem with that... Never mind, I guess I really don't want to know.

    5. Re:When... by koko775 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RTFA. The comments are identical. However, who's to say that the code wasn't lifted from Linux?

    6. Re:When... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the code they are referencing has been part of their Unix OS since long before Linux was started. So that's impossible. Maybe it was lifted from minix! :-P

    7. Re:When... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let me get this straight. SCOX wants $1 billion for 100 lines of code. Man, those lines must be like magic.

      Can't wait for the trial so we can findout what m****f****er put those lines into Linux.

    8. Re:When... by konquered · · Score: 3, Funny

      $1 billion/80 lines = $12.5 million/line Said SCO's McBride: "These 80 lines of code contained the key to the meaning of the universe."

    9. Re:When... by jmccay · · Score: 1

      That assumes that the code was copied to Linux. Whose to say the code wasn't copied from Linux so SCO could use a new renue stream?

      That fact is that until SCO makes these code lines public, we can't know. I think they are hiding something. I think they may have put the code their themselves to generate a new revenue stream and/or take control of major Linux companies in some way. We can only determine who put the lines in the code when we know the lines, but I don't think we will ever find out because SCO HAS SOMETHING to hide!
      This would be a good time for someone with a lot of money and a love of Linux to step in and counter sue SCO to possible GPL infringement, or racketering (sp?).

      The other possibility is that SCO copied the code from linux to their stuff. This would harder to find out because we'd have to have access to SCO proprietary history files.

      SCO has a lot of things to prove now!!! We are waiting SCO. Put-up or shut up!!! Make the so-called proprietary copied code public, and prove that you didn't copy it to your code, and you didn't put the code in their yourself!

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    10. Re:When... by wwwillem · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe the code they are referencing has been part of their Unix OS since long before Linux was started.

      In case you're right, which you could well be, the next question is "who copied it from Unix to Linux"... Maybe not IBM, why would they :-). Could it have been Caldera in the time they were trying to create their "Unified Unix" or whatever it was called? Read Cringely's column of this week about the topic!! Refreshing.....

      In other words, it's one thing to show that wrong was done, it's another to prove who did that wrong .....

      --
      Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
    11. Re:When... by IllogicalStudent · · Score: 1

      "These 80 lines of code contained the key to the meaning of the universe."

      Odd, I would've thought that such a key would only be 42 lines of code.

      --
      But Maaa! Everyone else has a .sig !
    12. Re:When... by dbrutus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whatever the module in question, I'm sure that SCO has access to the changelogs. What's going to hurt their campaign to go after end users will be that the community would be more than happy to scrap and recode any offending code. The BSD lawsuit years ago proved that to be the case. So instead of minimizing damages and going after the bad actors here, SCO is trying to maximize claimed damages and go after the widest net of infringers.

      That's not going to sit well with most juries.

    13. Re:When... by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing it's someone who just got fired after assuring the board of directors that Linux wasn't going to cause legal problems.

    14. Re:When... by Gaurang · · Score: 1

      Actually SCO cannot reveal the lines in public. If they do, then in a moment's notice, somebody will write a patch that replaces the 80-line code and does the same thing in a different way. What will SCO do then? ;-)

      --
      I have found a solution to Riemann's Hypothesis, but have run out of spac
    15. Re:When... by ahknight · · Score: 1

      Not entirely accurate. Sure, they'll remove it from the current version, but there's a shitload of archives of those versions that have already been "sold" to the general public.

      They can always say that the old stuff is the key, but what they really want to do is more evil than most people have seen: by forcing people to leave the code in, when the case is over in two years they can claim damages up to the time the case is decided rather than now, when we can remove it.

      They're keeping it a secret to increase damages. It'll take a second lawsuit to undo those damages and prove this is what they were up to, but by then they'll have taken the money and declared bankruptcy and be unable to pay it back, so it won't matter.

      SCO is a SCam.

    16. Re:When... by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      Makes me wonder if SCO (formerly Caldera) had put the code themselves into Linux IF this is true.

      IF this IS true I would love to know how did this.

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
  2. Has anybody considered by gazbo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    That maybe SCO are telling the truth - that maybe there is ripped off code? Undoubtedly if the claim was that MS had included GNU code in their apps, people would automatically presume guilt; why the immediate defensiveness now?

    Especially as we have 80 lines of identical code including comments which is the real kicker.

    1. Re:Has anybody considered by WeiszNet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      True, but one cannot deny the fact that SCO does act very weird. Usually when some company "steals" GPL code, the copyright holder gives the company a chance to correct his mistake (and shows proove immediatly).

      SCO does not do all this, which does not make it look honest.

    2. Re:Has anybody considered by dfeist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not only that, but they contradict themselves every few days. Sometimes it's copyright, sometimes patents, sometimes trade secrets.

      And umm, how can the Linux users be guilty if IBM put their code into the kernel source? They can't. If it was about proprietary software, noone would say all the licensees are guilty. But it isn't really another case then this - IBM gave it to the community under GPL. Some proprietary company gave it to the users under a proprietary license. Where's the difference? It's not the source, but I don't think that is important since the binary is generated from the copyrighted code, so it is copyrighted, too.

      --
      Unix makes easy tasks hard and hard tasks possible. Windows makes easy tasks easy and hard tasks $29.95.
    3. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure everyone has, but the way that SCO has acted at every stage simply doesn't add up to a company that's playing this thing straight. They haven't changed their tune, the ducking and dodging isn't indicative of a sure-footed claim by any means. This is like the techno/corporate version of the woman filing a lawsuit against McDonalds due to her hot coffee being too hot..

      I don't care for Cringely's columns, but his recent idea about SCO actually contribuing what it's accusing others of stealing could (I think anyway) blow this 80 line claim out of the water.

    4. Re: Has anybody considered by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Insightful


      > the way that SCO has acted at every stage simply doesn't add up to a company that's playing this thing straight.

      If they were in fact trying to protect their IP then the first thing that would have happened is that kernel.org would have been hit with a cease-n-desist.

      This is another kind of game altogether.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:Has anybody considered by bheading · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As the article points out, no-one knows that this code was SCO's to begin with. It could have found it's way from Linux to SCO's code. It could have bubbled it's way up from the earlier BSD releases. Who knows ?

      If the case was really that simple it sounds like it's open-and-shut. It's hard to understand why SCO won't show it publicly, or allow anyone to see it without making them sign a huge NDA. What do they have to lose ?

      And even then, the 80 lines would have to be pretty critical to form the basis for claims of $1bn in damages. How many thousands of lines of code are there in Linux (or any other OS) and how many blocks of 80 lines are singularly critical to the whole functioning of the OS ?

    6. Re:Has anybody considered by aborchers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think anyone has denied the possibility that their claims might be true. The criticism has been about how they have conducted themselves. If SCO wasn't run by a bunch of ligitous peckerheads, they would have announced the infringment and it would have been removed from the Linux code. However, they're more interested in flexing their FUD to either (a) extort whatever they can get from IBM et al, or (b) undermine the credibility of (non-SCO) Linux.

      What this shows me is that OSS unfortunately lets jerks into the party as well as people who want to play fair and make a contribution to the community. These people better enjoy it while it lasts and hope for their big payday, cause they'll never eat lunch in this town again...

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    7. Re:Has anybody considered by Bart+Coppens · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but I think, that when they want to use their 'trade secrets' to win this battle, it is a wise choice not to reveal the code. Because (if I understand it correctly) if they would reveal this code publicly to show they are right, they would lose their trade secrets (as they're not a secret anymore)

    8. Re:Has anybody considered by Your+Anus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It shouldn't be all that hard to prove where the code came from. Anything that gets into the linux kernel is posted on the linux-kernel mailing list. I would think one could simply grep the archives, given the lines of code/comments in question.

      --

      In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
    9. Re:Has anybody considered by be-fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Saying that "it's called capitalism" isn't a good arguement, its a cop-out. Lot's of companies manage to go about their business maximizing profit without resorting to unethical practices. The ones that don't (think Enron, Tyco, etc) end up on the evening news after getting busted by the government. Our government encourages healthy competition, not unethical behavior. They have laws to that effect. If something seems to be clearly unethical, you're going to need a better reason than just saying that they're trying to maximize their profit.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    10. Re:Has anybody considered by dnoyeb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Its irrelevent. I am sure if SCO opened their code to full inspection, they would have numerous GPL violations. Thats just how business goes these days. Thats why you see big companies settling out of court. And thats one of the major reasons for the patent frenzy. So, so what if their is 80 lines of stolen code. Lets see how much GPL/LGPL/other license code is hidden in the SCO code....

    11. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What SCO is doing is not a "common business practice". It's very close to extortion and in my opinion slander. There are many ways to "extract a maximum of revenues from a maximum of userbase" that are not acceptable in our society. We try to make laws to keep these abuses to a minimum, but the laws aren't perfect. Just because somethings legal doesn't mean it should be condoned.

    12. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Australia, it is legal to copy up to 20% of a copyrighted book. I ran wc(1) over just the "kernel" dir in my copy of 2.4 --> over 15,000 lines. 80 lines isn't even 1/2 of 1%.... Even if these were lifted from SCO, IBM would be able to include them under Fair Use laws, no?

    13. Re:Has anybody considered by Gnulix · · Score: 2, Informative

      Especially as we have 80 lines of identical code including comments which is the real kicker.

      First of all, have you considered that this might be 80 lines from something that is based on a reference implementation? Stuff like tcp/ip stacks, device drivers and so on are often based on reference source released by device manufacturers or standard groups.
      br Secondly, 80 lines isn't much and considering how bad some programmers are at writing comments, I'm not surprised if there are similiar comments :-)

    14. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the millionth time, the coffee thing with McDonalds was entirely valid. I don't have any of the links explaining it at the moment, but McDonald's had a history of repeatedly causing burns with *extremely* hot coffee, and never doing anything about it. It wasn't like "duh, it's coffee, of course it's hot" -- the coffee was like 180+ degrees! You don't sell someone something to drink that will cause third degree burns. It's just stupid. And there was other shadiness in there too, like McDonalds claiming people waited to drink the coffee until they got to work (ie: it had to be super-hot to still be warm when they got to work), even though their own research showed otherwise, that people would attempt to drink the scalding hot coffee in the car on their way to work. And in case you're making false assumptions, the lady was in the passenger seat of a parked car when she spilled it. And finally, if you still think it's a "frivilous" law suit, come over here and let me pour 180% coffee down your throat and see how you respond. If you manage to not drop the coffee cup and only get severe third degree burns on your throat and mouth, you're still a fucking moron.

    15. Re:Has anybody considered by cookd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I sincerely hope that all of this blows over. I'm very suspect of SCO's claims, especially since they won't let the evidence out, which means that they're going to charge royalties for everyone using their code without telling us exactly what we need to remove their code from Linux. Withholding the evidence is making everyone mad, and preventing us from "coming clean" by removing "their" code or even by licensing "their" Linux if we feel so inclined.

      However, let's assume that there are right -- they own Unix, and there are segments of code, up to 80 lines in length, that match between Linux and Unix. What does that show? Still nothing in itself. The code could also be in BSD, in which case it would be free and clear from any SCO claims (although if it lacks the appropriate copyright label, the Berkeley regents might have to send their agents over to rough Linus up a bit (grin)). Or something like that. The code might well be public domain stuff (from an academic paper, from some code library, etc.), so nothing to see.

      But assume SCO does own the code. We just rewrite those sections and call it good, right? Wrong. The sections are evidence of contamination, and it will be difficult to determine exactly how far the contamination goes. If someone could copy and paste SCO code, he/she was also probably doing other things -- opening the Unix code in one window, and writing a similar Linux routine in another window, referring back to the Unix code for a "how-to". This is also illegal, as such things need to be done via clean room reverse engineering procedures.

      SCO will then argue that the contamination is very deep. IBM and the Open Source people in general will argue that the contamination is insignificant. It might be hard to tell in some cases. SCO will argue that the design patterns in use in Linux were stolen from Unix, and that those design patterns are crucial IP. Everything built around that design will have to be rewritten, probably with a different design to prove that we aren't continuing to steal their precious design. And then everything that depends on that design will also have to be rewritten. Etc. Depending on how deep the problem goes (according to what the courts decide), it may or may not be feasible to rewrite the affected portions and send out patches. The problem is that lawyers may have to get involved, certifying that the portions rewritten comply with all necessary laws and no longer intrude on SCO's IP. It may be necessary to abandon portions of Linux entirely, perhaps importing replacement code from BSD or the like.

      In the meantime, all of the big fish who have been using Linux will be sued for royalties. I'm sure that many suits will be dismissed, but some will be upheld.

      Whether or not SCO wins, this will be a wakeup call. Before accepting GNU tools for use in the business, managers are now going to be asking, "how can we be certain that this code is legit?" It is a very valid question. All source has pedigree -- are there any portions of this code that might be discovered to belong to someone else? If so, what protects us from having that code yanked out from under us? Somebody could sue us for damages, refuse to license the code to us, and shut down our entire operation.

      If SCO wins, beyond the damage to Linux itself, a lot of people are going to get very nervous about using open source products in general in the business world. Even if they lose, things are still going to get a bit more tense, as you may have to prove the code's purebred pedigree before you can use it to run your IT department.

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    16. Re:Has anybody considered by surprise_audit · · Score: 5, Insightful
      But the "trade-secret" code is already published in the Linux source, if SCO is to be believed...

      Either: 1) SCO's code is included in the Linux kernel, and is therefore irrevocably publically available and no longer qualifies as trade-secret;
      or 2) SCO's code is not in the Linux kernel and may still be a valuable trade-secret. Or it may not, but that's not Linux's problem.

      There isn't a third option, and all this dicking around with NDA's and crap like that is merely making SCO look stupid.

    17. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      including comments doesn't mean anything. SCO could have changed the comments in their source code after the fact, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference - it would even compile to the exact same binaries. It's going to take one hell of alot more 'proof' than this. The secrecy is unecessary. If they had real proof, they'd show it. It's obviously BS, that's why we see it that way.

    18. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're Microsoft? :)

    19. Re:Has anybody considered by Your+Anus · · Score: 2

      Actually, they cannont get "maximum revenue," also known as treble damages, because they have not indicated what code is supposedly infringing, and they have not allowed an opportunity to correct the problem. In fact, I doubt they will get anything close to $1 billion. The SCO presentation is all theater and absurdity.

      --

      In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
    20. Re:Has anybody considered by surprise_audit · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ...the copyright holder gives the company a chance to correct his mistake (and shows proove immediatly)

      It's been said here before - if SCO tell us which bits are "stolen", those bits would be replaced very fast by the kernel developers. This would not be optimum for SCO, because they could not then demand licensing from all Linux users. If they can get a judge to confirm the theft without disclosing to the public where the stolen code is, then they'll have a legal leg to stand on when holding the entire Unix world to ranso

    21. Re:Has anybody considered by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      While they might not be able to get ongoing license revenue under that plan, they'd still be able to sue like mad for damages dating back to the "theft" of the code. That could still amount to a nice tidy sum...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    22. Re:Has anybody considered by WeiszNet · · Score: 1

      Looking back at the original question, "Has anybody considered that maybe SCO are telling the truth":

      If SCO does not seem to be honest, a point you supported, why would I believe them?

      Ad "capitalism" others have already replied to this point.

    23. Re:Has anybody considered by TobiasSodergren · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, 180 degree hot coffee is just plain vaporware.

    24. Re:Has anybody considered by EpsCylonB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow, Goerge W Bush is posting to slashdot now.

      Seriously, do you believe that all corporations act ethically all the time ?.

      I could bring up M$ as an example of the USA's failure to stop companies acting unethically.

      Instead I will just point out the fact that a lot of goods sold in the west are made in unethical condtions (clothes made in sweatshops, diamonds mined by children, etc.).

    25. Re:Has anybody considered by heikkile · · Score: 1
      It's pretty naive to believe that companies can wander around giving donating their IP to the public.

      Maybe I do not understand the American capitalism very well, but I know that I work for a company that "wanders around giving donating (sic) (some of) their IP to the public", and the company has survived quite well the past 8 years. Naive or not, it certainly is possible!

      --

      In Murphy We Turst

    26. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "180+ degrees" and you're calling him a fucking moron?

    27. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is no way they can keep the code secret. They cannot compel Linux distro companies or end users to continue to pay fees to license their code indefinitely. They must tell the people who they allege are in violation exactly what they are licensing and give them an opportinuty to cease the infringement by removing the code. They cannot force users to completely drop the Linux kernel source tree because a tiny fraction of a percent of the code violates their IP rights.

      Once Red Hat or another distro company (who are end users of Linux themselves and therefore liable) patches the code to replace it in their kernel and is compelled by the GPL to distribute the patched kernel source tree, it's a simple matter of diffing the source to see what code was replaced.

      I think the fact that the kernel in Caldera Linux that is licensed under the GPL (and they continued to knowingly distribute it under the GPL after they were aware of the code) likely has this code, eliminates any claims they may think they have against Linux users. Then there's also the Lindows.com contract which may have effectively laundered their code through the GPL.

      And of course they have to prove that the code wasn't previously released under the BSD license and was intended only for Unix. Unless they have the author of the code testify under oath, I think they will have a hard time proving that.

    28. Re:Has anybody considered by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Oh shut up piggy!

      In 30 seconds I could boot into linux [even though WinXP is on my computer]. Simply plop a Knoppix CD in and boom workable linux [to a certain degree]. apt-get openoffice and boom I have an office suite. apt-get GCC and boom I have a working C compiler [among other langs], etc...

      It isn't that I don't have a choice its just that I don't want to. ....Arguments for either side....

      Many like Linux, many like windows. At this point in the game people *DO* have a choice. The fact that MS pulls some bigwig muscle is a problem of the stores. just because a store doesn't sell Windows doesn't mean they can't sell other OSes or hardware. Most stores I know have a huge display of hardware [graphics cards are the most popular] while a small section of a shelf for windows...

      So get off your high horse. Maybe the failure to act in the US is just a gathering of common sense.

      [And yes, this reply along with the original post I am replying to are Off-Topic so mod as appropriate].

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    29. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, wouldn't it have to be 212 Deg. F. for it to be vaporware?

    30. Re:Has anybody considered by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Especially as we have 80 lines of identical code
      > including comments

      No. We have somebody who _says_ that 80 lines of code including comments are identical but who has entered into a secret agreement with SCO that lets SCO control what they say.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    31. Re:Has anybody considered by aralin · · Score: 1

      BTW Does the NDA cover the comments as well? Don't post the code, just give us the comments, we can grep through :) Its gone before you can say 'done'.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    32. Re:Has anybody considered by http · · Score: 1


      whoh, whoh, whoh, whoh. hold on a second there. managers don't care about the size of the userbase. usually size of userbase and revenues are related, but that's got nothing to do with profit. try "maximum of revenues fr om a minimum of customers that we ^H^H our lower-paid support staff ever have to deal with for more than two minutes." </cynicysm>>

      --
      If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
      3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
    33. Re:Has anybody considered by glenstar · · Score: 1
      Do you fully grasp the conspiracy necessary for SCO to pull that off? The entire chain of command from the CEO down to system administrator would have to be in on it! Not saying it's impossible, but highly unlikely.

      I see five possible outcomes:

      1. A developer at SCO "appropriated" some Linux kernel code, or,
      2. A Linux kernel committer "appropriated" some SCO code,or,
      3. A SCO employee planted SCO code in the kernel for some reason other than a directive from the SCO executive team, or,
      4. An angry kernel hacker, perhaps upset about Linus' use of BitKeeper, planted some SCO code, or,
      5. Like the million monkeys and infinity, somehow both a Linux developer and a SCO developer came up with "hundreds" (McBride's words) of lines of identical code.

      Out of all of the above, I would place my bet on either 3 or 4. Chances are that neither the Linix team nor the SCO team, as wholes, would stoop to such behavior.
    34. Re:Has anybody considered by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 1

      Undoubtedly if the claim was that MS had included GNU code in their apps, people would automatically presume guilt

      Incidentally, Microsoft obeys in such cases (Microsoft Services For UNIX contained GPLed technology at some point).

    35. Re:Has anybody considered by EJB · · Score: 1

      It is irrelevant. SCO kept distributing Linux under the GPL after knowing that (what is supposedly) their code was in it.
      That means that they knowingly and willingly released this code under the GPL license.

      It's a very simple argument (put forward by many people). And SCO hasn't put anything against it yet.

      Now if someone would want to have some fun (with help from a lawyer) and do something useful, they'd ask SCO for the source of their product. SCO is required to honour this request, per the GPL. Of course it is most fun if this person or company bought SCO linux _after_ they sued IBM.

      If SCO doesn't honour it, they're in deep copyright problems: not only did they breach the contract with that someone (a license is a contract), but per the GPL, if you don't honour the GPL, then you don't have the right to distribute the GPL'ed code. And since they did, it'd be a criminal copyright violation.

    36. Re:Has anybody considered by perdelucena · · Score: 2, Funny


      They just found the guy who submited the code. It was an anonymous submission from some guy whose e-mail is evildoer@sco.com

    37. Re:Has anybody considered by stevew · · Score: 1

      The thing you miss ( and I HATE defending SCO here) is that if the code is there --- It constitutes IP theft, which is the actionable part of the whole thing.

      The other part the arguement that you didn't seem to bring up is that SCO themselves have shipped this code in a Linux kernel under GPL which may remove the ability to claim theft.

      --
      Have you compiled your kernel today??
    38. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since 180-190 degrees F is the optimal serving temperature for coffee, I was asuming he/she meant C.

    39. Re:Has anybody considered by ClosedSource · · Score: 0, Troll

      So first SCO is at fault for not showing any evidence. Now that they have, the claim is that they can't prove the code is theirs. If the Linux community wasn't going to accept code as evidence, why ask for it in the first place?

      In your post you are asking why this code, that you don't believe is valid evidence, be made public. Why should SCO bother? Besides, copied or not, you already have it. Just look in the Linux source.

    40. Re:Has anybody considered by Nucleon500 · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but I don't believe the GPL allows you to do that. The entire kernel (except perhaps this code) is GPL, and nobody can distribute it unless they give the recipients the GPL rights, including redistribution for no more than a nominal charge for the media.

      --
      Litigious bastards
    41. Re:Has anybody considered by SnowZero · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And I still don't buy it either. It's not like any other IP enforcement we've ever seen. Not even the RIAA/MPAA act like this:

      Imagine the RIAA comes and tells you that one of the CDs in your collection is a pirated copy, but they won't tell you which, and you must start immediately paying them royalties, along with fees for past damages.

      Doesn't sound very ethical now does it? "Fair" would be indicated the infringing code so that it could be removed, and charging for damages of the use up to the point in time which it was removed. Making someone pay while not giving the opportunity to fix the problem is simply extortion.

    42. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stand corrected. I looked it up myself and yep, McDonalds was at fault. Obviously, that doesn't overlook the fact that you couldn't rationally provide an argument (um, link?; providing some real info with your offtopic post instead of looking like a scab).

      For example:

      This page

      You're just a coffee lover. A dickhead too for sure, but I can understand the need to defend those who partake of the burnt bean w/water ritual.

    43. Re:Has anybody considered by Datafage · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except you have to take all steps you can to reduce ongoing damages - being aware of infringement and preventing people from ending it is illegal.

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

    44. Re:Has anybody considered by ClosedSource · · Score: 0, Troll

      I should have said "isn't made public" instead of "be made public"

    45. Re:Has anybody considered by the+gnat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I could bring up M$ as an example of the USA's failure to stop companies acting unethically.

      No one is claiming that our government has ever been the ideal tool for harnessing the unethical behavior of companies - though it's done a decent job at times, this sort of economic micromanagement is very difficult to pull off and many think it's a bad idea. However, the point that you missed is that maximization of profit is not usually considered a reasonable motive for morally bankrupt behavior. Yes, Nike and Microsoft are unethical, but they've never tried to give the excuse of "maximizing value for our shareholders". It's always some bullshit about innovation or emerging markets instead.

      The problem with this argument is that everyone has a different perception of what "corporate ethics" should be, and while pretty much everyone agrees that the Enron execs acted unethically, people have a much wider range of views on Microsoft.

    46. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But theatre and "absurdity" is exactly what works in court.

      They don't have to convince the community that they're right, just the judge.

    47. Re:Has anybody considered by c0dedude · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh but there is. It is a trade secret. The trade is suing people.To reveal the lines of code would seriously jepordize SCO's only viable product, stupid lawsuits.

      --
      Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
    48. Re:Has anybody considered by Fished · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Ok "ClosedSource" (whaddaya work for MicroSoft?) I'm not even going to try to analyze the fallacies in this little troll, I'll just rebut them.
      So first SCO is at fault for not showing any evidence. Now that they have, the claim is that they can't prove the code is theirs. If the Linux community wasn't going to accept code as evidence, why ask for it in the first place?
      What code? All we've got at this point, from what I can tell, is one non-programmger "analyst" with no significant UNIX experience and a degree in communication/minor in French lit claiming that "comments are the DNA." I'll consider the code as having been given once I have:
      1. The code, including line numbers, filenames, and the whole sourcefile from UNIXWARE it is based on.
      2. The SCO changelog showing the code goes back a long time.
      3. Linux's changelog showing the code doesn't go back a long time.
      Until SCO provide specifics to the Linux development community, they've provided *nothing*.
      n your post you are asking why this code, that you don't believe is valid evidence, be made public. Why should SCO bother? Besides, copied or not, you already have it. Just look in the Linux source.
      Listen here, troll-boy... Do you have any IDEA how many lines of code there are in Linux? SCO hasn't said where this code is, hasn't given any description of the code, and hasn't given any evidence that they didn't copy it from Linux or introduce it into Linux themselves. They've provided no evidence, just FUD.

      I've never said that it was enough for SCO to reveal some code to somebody. I'm saying that SCO needs to reveal enough code to figure out what actually happened to the general public. So far, they've made *nothing* public.

      --
      "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    49. Re:Has anybody considered by ReconRich · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The thing you miss ( and I HATE defending SCO here) is that if the code is there --- It constitutes IP theft, which is the actionable part of the whole thing.

      Not true. A very likely source for that code is that it came from Unix code which was covered by the BSDi/UC Berkeley lawsuit and has been entered into the public domain. Loads of code in Linux has come from BSD, which in turn came from UNIX, just like SCO's code. But a judge has already taken care of that code - it's known to be good. But so long as noone can check (because of the NDA), noone will know. Or it could have been copied the other way, and now SCO's code is GPL'ed ;-)

      -- Rich

      --
      Free your mind and your Ass will follow -- George Clinton
    50. Re:Has anybody considered by akorvemaker · · Score: 1

      Yep. I did. So did this guy a couple weeks later.

    51. Re:Has anybody considered by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Yeah, most people who think rationally have considred that, in the particulars of the IBM case, SCO might actually have some case.

      The thing is, even if IBM directly stole copyrighted code and used it, that does NOT make SCO the overlord of all things linux, it just means IBM fucked up.

      The linux world ISN'T about stealing, and if SCO were to tell the world what code was stolen, and if we believed them (like, if it could be shown that the code came from IBM, etc) then the kernel developers at least woudl most likely remove the code immediately, and get to work on something else.

      SCO still hasn't indicated if they are talking about copyright violation, or a trade secret. In other words, are they mad about this exact code, or are they mad about what the code actually does.

    52. Re:Has anybody considered by jester · · Score: 1

      So what if they have copied lines from Linux ? Comments and all ?

      How are you they going to prove that they were there first ? It is in the public domain when anything appears in Linux ... but what about their codebase ? Since its secret, who can independently verify it ?

    53. Re:Has anybody considered by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      I just wanted to get the point over that if SCO's code is in the Linux kernel, it's already too late to use the trade secret argument for the NDA.

      I agree that there could be IP theft going on, and that SCO may also have shot their own toes off by distributing the code themselves, and that possibly SCO stole the code from Linux... What I'm hoping is that if it gets to trial, a decent attorney for IBM/Linux can show the judge exactly how petty, childish and monumentally stupid SCO are being over the NDA. With luck, the judge would toss out the NDA (or whatever, IANAL), allowing the reviewers to go public with the "stolen" code blocks, and the Linux kernel would rapidly acquire patches to replace that code.

      Indeed, it's definitely suspicious that SCO are not publishing the alleged infringing code, and thereby allowing the alleged infringers to cease-and-desist by patching it out. Seems like SCO are trying to set up a situation where they can perpetually claim infringement and effectively shut Linux out of the corporate world with threats of lawsuit

    54. Re:Has anybody considered by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      But if you don't own the code in the first place, you can't place it under GPL.

      Using your logic... I've just place Windows under the GPL - enjoy that source everyone!

    55. Re:Has anybody considered by bezuwork's+friend · · Score: 1
      IANAL (yet), but given their code was a trade secret and was published in the kernel, the following at least holds:

      1) they can get damages against those who revealed it,

      2) code which could arguably be still protected as trade secret (perhaps code released to a controlled group but not yet to the general public) would likely be prevented from further disclosure by an injunction, and

      3) for code which was copied but can still be valuable as a trade secret, there are ways it can be disclosed within the court to prove copying but kept from public exposure.

    56. Re:Has anybody considered by gmack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The really strange thing is that any sysV code would have far predated IBM's involvement with kernel development.

      As we know from previous inverviews IBM hsa a _very_ strict disclosure policy where every bit of code relsed has to be checked first. It's also been noted that the Linux labs are *not* allowed to view source code from AIX.

      I imagine the reason they don't want to publically give out this information because that would allow the OSS community to find out where the code actually came from. I'm guessing it's third party and neither SCO or Linux has IP rights over the code in question.

    57. Re:Has anybody considered by Flywheel · · Score: 1

      Heise.de interviewed a former employee - who has a theory about it being SCO's own fault - that the code had been leaked in relation to the Monterey project.

      --
      Live long and prosper...
    58. Re:Has anybody considered by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      If it was a trade secret that is at issue there is no reason to remove the code. The secret is no more, IBM is in trouble but the code is now public domain.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    59. Re:Has anybody considered by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "The code, including line numbers, filenames, and the whole sourcefile from UNIXWARE it is based on."

      It sounds to me like your definition of "enough" is everything. In any case, the Linux community should now do what they should have done from the begining, establish what they consider to be adequate evidence (as you have done, however unrealistically) and stick with the defintion.

    60. Re:Has anybody considered by treat · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That maybe SCO are telling the truth - that maybe there is ripped off code?

      Maybe because of quotes like this from their CEO:

      McBride said SCO had few options in the late 1990s as Linux began surfacing in the business computing world. "Even if you potentially had a problem [with concerns about Unix code in Linux back then], what are you going to do?" McBride asked. "Sue Linus Torvalds? And get what?"

    61. Re:Has anybody considered by Cirvam · · Score: 1

      If someone, say SCO writes some code, then licenses it to IBM, and then IBM releases it under the GPL, then they are liable. Its not the users fault that IBM broke whatever license agreement that IBM had with SCO. And if Microsoft gave you the source to Windows under some licensing agreement you could place it under the GPL, of course you would be breaking your license agreement with Microsoft and noone really knows what happens to the code in these kinda instances. Or at least there aren't any highly publicized precedents.

    62. Re:Has anybody considered by magic · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Copyright allows for fair use of small amounts of material-- a paragraph from a book, few notes from a song, even the entirety of a short poem.


      80 lines of a million line program is a very small fraction, so this would have to stand on trade secrets, not copyright. Unless you sign a deal not to expose them, I don't think trade secrets are protected. Copyrights and patents are to encourage people to release work into the public domain after a short (150 year copyrights? WTF) period of time. So trade secrets, which keep work private, aren't protected in the same way. Presumably, the argument is that they gave IBM Unix source under a license agreement and IBM put that code into Linux.


      Finally, the origin of the code has to be established. I can't show up with ten pages of text from William Gibson's newest novel embedded in my own book and claim that he stole it from me. SCO must demonstrate that Unix was the origin of the code to have any kind of suit. This requires finding the programmer who committed it (hey, for $1B at stake, maybe SCO added their own code to Linux) and when it was committed. Again, with $1B at stake, I'm not sure a 10 year old CVS log is sufficient evidence. I think testimony is necessary.


      Then again, OJ wasn't guilty.


      -m

    63. Re:Has anybody considered by RenQuanta · · Score: 5, Insightful
      So first SCO is at fault for not showing any evidence. Now that they have, the claim is that they can't prove the code is theirs.

      The code has yet to be given out to the community for consideration, it was shown to two heavily biased analysts under a strict NDA.

      The DiDio character is a Windows consultant, and the Aberdeen group released a report last November that Linux was "the most vulnerable operating system". Yeah, that's the same as giving it to the community for them to verify SCO's outlandish claims.

      Besides, copied or not, you already have it. Just look in the Linux source.
      > pwd
      /usr/src/linux-2.4.20
      > ls -F
      COPYING Makefile arch/ include/ lib/
      CREDITS README count.txt init/ mm/
      Documentation/ REPORTING-BUGS drivers/ ipc/ net/
      MAINTAINERS Rules.make fs/ kernel/ scripts/

      wc `find drivers` | grep total>>count.txt
      wc `find fs` | grep total>>count.txt
      wc `find include` | grep total>>count.txt
      wc `find init` | grep total>>count.txt
      wc `find ipc` | grep total>>count.txt
      wc `find kernel` | grep total>>count.txt
      wc `find lib` | grep total>>count.txt
      wc `find mm` | grep total>>count.txt
      wc `find net` | grep total>>count.txt
      wc `find scripts` | grep total>>count.txt
      > cat count.txt
      2536224 8901774 75504253 total
      318544 1344003 10463709 total
      539341 2073426 17956222 total
      1643 5032 38571 total
      3289 9680 74527 total
      14262 44543 349883 total
      8456 36302 259818 total
      15428 51466 387165 total
      233962 700480 5920826 total
      12201 45061 320402 total
      Yeah, sure. We'll get right on that. (In case you missed the sarcasm, eighty lines of code is a friggin' needle in the haystack! I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out all they implications that fact has...)

      Why should SCO bother?

      You're right about that. It's not in SCO's best interests now to give everyone the information required to determine what the facts are. It's in their best interest to drag this out as long as possible, to spread as much Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt as possible, and to control public opinion by controlling the flow of information.

      My guess? There may well be some code, but I'm betting that SCO didn't do their homework (corporate managers rarely do). It could be from the BSDs, from public-domain literature, or from SCalderO's own UNIX-Linux integration project which I've read referenced in other posts here.

      In any case, I have no doubt that SCO has no case here. For further proof, go read the OSI position paper on the matter. A lengthy read, but very enlightening, and basically shows the SCO claims to be rather without merit. Or is your mind as closed as your source?
    64. Re:Has anybody considered by GrassyKnowl · · Score: 1

      I suspect that there is other code that is in Linux that is also in SCO and those code are GPL code thus making the entire SCO kernel GPL.

    65. Re:Has anybody considered by Grizzlysmit · · Score: 1
      no not really, not unless the comments are of such a nature that it couldn't be a fluke, I mean how can we know for sure with out seeing the comments, are they history/I did this when type comments then, yes it could prove a lot, (i.e. someone copied the other, from experince with comercial enties, some one cut and paste some free into sco's stuff is more likely then, as an OSS guy would at lest have the time to remove the evidece).

      But come on normal explanitory comments can be as boilerplate as the code they comment. Also consider the size of the two code bases the probablity that, anywhere from 80 to 10000 lines of code plus normal non-history type comments would would be found is pretty much a given, they need blocks >~ 100 lines, even with history type comments if one wanted to allow for subbsitution of dates and names then they to are pretty much the same.

      Nope sorry the evidence still says SCO are to dum to live!!

      --
      in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
      Francis Smit
    66. Re:Has anybody considered by Nucleon500 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Obviously that doesn't apply to the contested code, but the GPL on the other 99.9% of the kernel is valid.

      Suppose SCO decided anyone using their snippets owes them $.01 per year. The instant they do that, it is no longer legal to distribute the tainted kernel, because you can't legally do it without placing further restrictions on the recipients.

      At this point, the code would be known. (If not, every commercial entity with an interest in Linux would sue SCO to discover which 80 lines they aren't allowed to redistribute.), and it would be rewritten. SCO might be able to sue users of the old code, but they could just upgrade. I think the only danger to Linux (not that I'm downplaying it) is the FUD.

      --
      Litigious bastards
    67. Re:Has anybody considered by blrichwine · · Score: 1

      If someone like IBM has licensed access SCO's code, couldn't they do a comparison against various Linux versions and check for the duped code? Then we could simply get to work at replacing it...

      If no one has licensed access to SCO's code, then could that mean that someone at SCO (or an earlier holder) gave out the code and is the real violator?

    68. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is my, admittedly limited, understanding of how trade secret, copyright, and patent law might limit SCO's grievences to just IBM.

      Trade secret laws entitle SCO to renumeration from the violator of NDA's and secrecy agreements held with SCO. Others who recieved the code did not do so knowing that it was "stolen", and thus can not be held liable. Additionally, SCO's unwitting publishing of Linux code does not relieve the fact that they gave their own stuff away. This means that anyone with Linux code after SCO published it, has it with SCO's permission. Its as if I sold a stack of old books at a yard sale to discover that I accidentally included a the one that an aunt kept $100 bills in as bookmarkers. They sold it and if they did not bother to check what was in it, then that is their negligence, not ours. Ignorace of the law is not an excuse.

      The patents SCO may, or may not, have are in a similar boat. In recent years, the Courts have become concerned over questionable litigation made using submarine patents, a practice made famous by Lemelson. It is not enought to show that IBM, or anyone else, is violating SCO's patents. The Courts may require that SCO explain why is has allowed their code to diffue for so long before protecting it. Since the code is openly available, they have had ample opporotunity to raise their objections. Waiting years for sufficient market diffusion and acceptance before asserting patent claims might very well undermine the validity of those claims. In other words, "use it or loose it." In this case, SCO might have lost their patent through the lack of enforcement. Claiming that they did not know about the potential patent violations is not an excuse, or at least it shouldn't be.

      Considering copyright is a bit more tricky. While the code in undoubtably copyrighted, the question is to prove who in fact it the rightful owner. Is it SCO, IBM, or some third party. In the United States, copyright is automatically attributed at the initial time of publication. The catch is that in order to assert copyright infringement in court, the work must first be registered at the Copyright Office. Did SCO register for copyright on those lines of code? Another problem is that the Courts have been reluctant to allow copyright on any utilitarian code that cannot be expressed in any other way. Those lines of code have to contain a "creative aspect".

      While there may be evidence of duplicated code, SCO still has some obstacles ahead of them. Even as the case proceeds, SCO has caused a great number of waves in the industry. If they fail to win, they might have just as well committed suicide. If they succeed, then IBM will surely appeal, dragging the case on for years. In the meantime, the infringing lines of code will be rewritten, limiting the ability of SCO initiate additional litigation against other companies. While lawyers and legal scholars may view the case as a significant victory for the liberal protection of software as intellectual property, SCO will likely become an industry paraiah, consigning itself to irrelevance and future obscurity.

      The whole thing as been terrible mishandled on SCO's part. It probably would have been better if SCO just quietly sat down with IBM to work out their problems, and sort out with Novell who owns what part of UNIX. This way they would have a greater change of recuperating potential revenue losses from just IBM, instead of risking everything in the US courts.

      Stockholders should not be happy that SCO's legal team would rather air dirty laundry in public rather than negotiating. The CEO should have more carefully considered their motivations in this matter. Increasing/protecting "shareholder value" by prioritizing on IP revenue generation, at the expense of industry development, is a hard case to make. After all, who is going to buy your product if you make a large segment of your clientele distrust you. They are not Microsoft, there is competition.

    69. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      One thing you have forgotten:

      SCO released their code in their own linux distribution under the GPL.

    70. Re:Has anybody considered by timmyf2371 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It's also been said here before, many times in fact, that SCO's Linux product was released and wasn't even pulled when they first announced that their IP was in the Linux code.

      It's no excuse that their code verification process didn't pick up this fact - IANAL, but doesn't this mean SCO have released their IP under GPL?

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    71. Re:Has anybody considered by hebertrich · · Score: 0

      Maybe THEY stole the code.. ;)
      Whatever the 80 or 2 or 1000 lines.. It's not important.
      What matters is to know what are the lines , what component are they a part of ?
      Is that in the Kernel ? In some other application ?
      The data up to now is insufficient for us to work on and correct the mistake.( if it is ) , and for the community to be able to make a good assessment of the situation.The rest is pure speculation
      and therefore totally useless for now.

    72. Re:Has anybody considered by pVoid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You're being defensive.

      Their contradicting themselves is just sloppy work on the behalf of their legal/PR team.

      As for the "how can Linux users be guilty if IBM" comment, two things: a) they aren't suing users, they are suing companies (for now), b) isn't OSS the crowd of people who pride themselves of having 'all the people' supporting their code?

      You cannot enjoy the priviledges of a group without taking on it's responsabilities. If someone screwed up in your system, you must all bear that burden... in whatever shape or form. I'm thinking, all linux will suffer from this is a temporary rollback of the source tree... or just emergency hacks to remove the code from current distributions. The shit flying through the fan really is for IBM at this point.

      On a side note, if this code has been in the tree for a long time, there's a good chance that big companies like Redhat might migrate to the new clean version of the tree and be forced to discontinue support for the older versions... which would be a nightmare for some.

    73. Re:Has anybody considered by nero4wolfe · · Score: 1

      Actually, the statements in the EE times story tell you nothing whatsoever.
      At the very minimum you need to know exactly how they are separating code that was in 32v from code that was in system 5, if they are doing that at all. System 5 is a modified copy of 32v; in the previous att usl vs uc berkeley lawsuit, issues of common code were resolved.
      You need to know whether it was a header file or a source file.
      They need to show that the code was post 32v, and was either originally developed at att usl, or the original developers assigned rights to att usl.
      Examples of commonality sco couldn't claim are copied UC Berkeley networking code, and (iirc) Sun NFS code.
      And those aren't the only examples.

    74. Re:Has anybody considered by gregorio · · Score: 1
      It's been said here before - if SCO tell us which bits are "stolen", those bits would be replaced very fast by the kernel developers.
      You know, when you steal something, you can't just give it back or stop using it, you are going to be prosecuted anyway.
    75. Re:Has anybody considered by Grizzlysmit · · Score: 1

      On closer inspection of the articles the source of this data is that "Aberdeen Group" yeah, Authors of many bodgy reports/FUD, since it comes from FUD for hire oops "The Aberdeen Group", we know ... nothing, sorry SCO hardly a credable witness, those guy make a living out of Purgury.

      --
      in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
      Francis Smit
    76. Re:Has anybody considered by schon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's been said here before - if SCO tell us which bits are "stolen", those bits would be replaced very fast by the kernel developers.

      Yes, and it's true - however your conclusion has no merit.

      This would not be optimum for SCO

      Wrong. This would indeed be optimum for SCO.

      If the alleged material has any value at all to SCO, SCO would want to stop people from distributing it as soon as possible, so that they can claim damages.

      By failing to disclose the alleged code, all they're doing is proving to any judge involved that the code is worthless, and therefore should not be considered when assessing damages to SCO.

      If they can get a judge to confirm the theft without disclosing to the public where the stolen code is, then they'll have a legal leg to stand on when holding the entire Unix world to ranso

      Bullshit. All a judge would do is order people to stop distributing the "stolen code" - and a judge can't do that without telling people what the hell it is that they should stop doing.

      Anything else would be extortion.

    77. Re:Has anybody considered by ClosedSource · · Score: 0

      "Yeah, sure. We'll get right on that. (In case you missed the sarcasm, eighty lines of code is a friggin' needle in the haystack!"

      Ah, but your forgetting the "many eyeballs" theory. I'm not a big believer in that theory, but many open-source advocates are.

      My point about "why should SCO bother" was that it's pointless to present proof to people who won't believe it proves anything anyway. Linux advocates should have established early on what they considered adequate proof. Then they wouldn't look like they are in denial now.

    78. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is unlikely that open-source developers have copied something purposely. It is more likely that someone has tried to sabotage their work, because what sense does it make to steal something and place it in their front-yard for everyone to see? If I'm not wrong, their code has been free for anyone to see from the beginning, so they must have known thet it can always be examined what they have done and when. But if there is something, they should be given a chance to correct it. Btw - It is not same with the traditonal closed-source software-development where developers can hide whatever they want (and what is more - protect their code as a "trade secret"). The damage they may cause to the competition is more serious, but no one seems to care.

    79. Re:Has anybody considered by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This is a civil suit, so SCO merely needs to have the balance of evidence on its side. This isn't an "innocent until proven guilty" thing (which would be hard in copyright cases - how do you prove a pirate didn't come up with something independently?)

      Still, Linux has been published the world over, at almost every stage, on CDs, in various archives. It shouldn't be difficult to show, for example, that a particular technology dates back to 1995, etc. The law tends to be more logical and less prone to absurd loopholes than people think. Assuming IBM is innocent, they have every reason to believe they'll win the case.

      And assuming they're guilty, SCO's refusal to even allow IBM to correct the damage coupled with their own licencing of the same technologies under the GPL (while they were a Linux vendor) suggests to me that their opportunity to get damages within a few orders of magnitude of a billion dollars is slight. I wouldn't even be surprised to see a token "$1" amount awarded, the usual sign a jury or judge sees a lawsuit as technically legal but clearly unwarranted.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    80. Re:Has anybody considered by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      They have threatened to sue users.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    81. Re:Has anybody considered by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Yes, IBM Australia would be allowed to produce a Linux especially for Australia that uses the Australian definition of fair use.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    82. Re:Has anybody considered by DickBreath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the Linux community wasn't going to accept code as evidence, why ask for it in the first place?

      Maybe the community would like to see some evidence of massive copyright infringement. Or any misappropriation of trade secrets.

      Let's get this straight. SCO is suing for $1 billion based on claims of misappropriation of trade secrets. They have not complained to the court of copyright infringement. So I really don't know what the big public distraction over copied code is. (Just that, a distraction.)

      If IBM contributed some kind of secret know how that was available nowhere else than SCO, this should be apparent to the Kernel developers. The source is, after all, in a source control system. It should be a simple matter, for SCO, to show which specific IBM developers contributed what secret know how, and when.

      If the secret know how is in the form of copied & pasted code, then 80 lines would seem hardly sufficient. After all, the kernel's are quite different. Could there really be 80 lines that are responsible for causing Linux to be accepted in the market at SCO's expense?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    83. Re:Has anybody considered by kubrick · · Score: 5, Interesting

      However, SCO aren't (currently) suing for breach of copyright. They are suing IBM for breaking their SCO Unix license by revealing trade secrets.

      They've muddied the waters by sending out their C&D to Linux customers, but they would have to prove the copyright breach pretty convincingly in the IBM case to get settlements from other companies -- and judges are normally very reluctant to decide issues outside the merits of the case at hand (although, of course, IANAL).

      There's always the chance that, if they manage to win this case, they'd be feeling pretty pumped, and take on IBM or another company in a wider-ranging suit which could cause the sorts of contamination problems you describe.

      Before accepting GNU tools for use in the business, managers are now going to be asking, "how can we be certain that this code is legit?"

      This is a question that all business users of code (open and closed) should be asking -- as MSSQL users found out when their use of the product was considered contributory infringement in the patent case Microsoft lost a little while ago. If the company selling you the product/service can't indemnify you from things like this, you need to be prepared for that contingency yourself.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    84. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then they'll have a legal leg to stand on when holding the entire Unix world to ranso

      SCO isn't ransoming the entire Unix world. Their claim is against IBM, and possibly Linux.

      HP (HP/UX), Sun (Solaris), SGI (IRIX), Apple (MacOS X), WindRiver (BSD/OS), FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and others are doing fine, thank you.

    85. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I love it. Mod him down as Troll...

      *MOD THEM ALL DOWN AS TROOOOOOLL*

      After all, maybe your insecure actions as moderators here will have some effect on the real world.

      Denial...

    86. Re:Has anybody considered by unoengborg · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately comparing changelog entries doesn't really work as evidence. How can we no that they didn't alter their logs? The Linux community have a hard time doing this, as they work out in the open, but SCO might have bin temped to do so. We need to compare binaries from the time where the theft is supposed to have taken place. And even then, it would be hard, as it really doesn't prove the origin of the code.

      --
      God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
    87. Re:Has anybody considered by Lew+Payne · · Score: 1

      You're a fruitcake. SCO isn't on trial here... and the "honesty" of their actions is not at issue. The issue is: Did they steal source code from SCO, comments and all. So far, that appears to be the case.

      Just because you don't like SCO, or you don't like the way they dress or how they handle the lawsuit doesn't change the facts of the case.

      Get a grip on reality. Better yet, get some noise filters in your life, and turn them on. Maybe you'll become a more objective person.

    88. Re:Has anybody considered by Lew+Payne · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You're full of shit, too. The complaint sounding in tort (the lawsuit, for you dummies) will be very clear as to what the infringements are. SCO has not contradicted itself, because when it comes to legal action, only the complaint can speak for SCO. Get a grip, you jerky little kids.

    89. Re:Has anybody considered by RenQuanta · · Score: 1
      Ah, but your forgetting the "many eyeballs" theory.

      I've forgotten nothing. The "many eyeballs" theory only works if one has code to review. If stolen code was submitted to Linus et al, how could they have known it was stolen? The SCO source is closed and proprietery. I'm sure, if there is stolen code, and SCO had brought it to the kernel team's attention, they would have replaced the offending lines promptly with a clean implementation.

      I'm not a big believer in that theory, but many open-source advocates are.

      Fortunately for the rest of us, others do, such as the scientific community for the past several hundred years. Good thing, too, or we'd still be living in the 17th century. (technology wise)

      Linux advocates should have established early on what they considered adequate proof.

      It's been very clear from the beginning - show us the code. SCO has failed to do so thus far, all they've been interested in doing is to grab headlines with the least data possible. They haven't even told us which parts of the kernel.

      Since you've clearly not bothered to read the OSI paper, allow me to make it easy for you and bring some of the meat & potatoes right to you. It clearly shows how SCO has not done their homework on this one:

      SCO/Caldera misrepresents the efforts of the open-source community

      When SCO/Caldera asserts (Paragraph 75): "The name âoeLinusâ(sic) was taken from the person who introduced Linux to the computing world, Linus Torvalds." its use of the verb âoeintroducedâ appears to be an attempt to insinuate that Linux was in some way copied or pre-existent rather than an invention that Linus Torvalds originated.

      Similarly, when SCO/Caldera asserts (Paragraph 78): âoeThe primary purpose of the GNU organization is to create free software based on valuable commercial software.â it portrays the GNU organization's original works as being mere derivatives or clones. In doing so, it flatly contradicts the evidence of major GNU projects such as the Emacs editor that is shipped by SCO/Caldera itself not merely on its Linux but on its Unix product as well. The Emacs editor predated every commercial product with even roughly comparable features.

      Both implied claims cannot but be characterized as false, self-serving attempts to denigrate the work of others in order to magnify SCO/Caldera's imputed importance as the present owner of the historical Bell Labs code. Furthermore, they are offensive to the tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of skilled programmers who have collaborated in the invention of modern open-source Unixes.

      SCO/Caldera misrepresents the state of Linux now

      In paragraph 85, SCO/Caldera claims: âoeFor example, Linux is currently capable of coordinating the simultaneous performance of 4 computer processors. UNIX, on the other hand, commonly links 16 processors and can successfully link up to 32 processors for simultaneous operation.â

      32-processor SMP was already implemented under Linux in 2000.[44] 24-processor operation, three times the 8-processor limit of UnixWare, was demonstrated in 1998 on a Sun E10000[45].

      Today, SGI is shipping Altix 3000 cluster computers that run Linux over 64 processors[46].

      SCO/Caldera grossly misrepresents the state of Linux before IBM

      A major part of SCO/Caldera's complaint turns on (a) representing pre-IBM Linux as a primitive makeshift being slapped together by garage-band amateurs. Their implied narrative is that (b) only the corporate intervention of IBM made Linux a competitive product, and that (c) IBM's intervention was in turn only efficacious due to the ineffable superiority of the primal Bell Labs code base.

      All three of these assertions are not merely false, they are profoundly disrespectful to the many, many developers worldwide who labored with sweat and brilliance to craft Linux into a

    90. Re:Has anybody considered by tkg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One possible, and admittedly tinfoil hat, reason for not revealing the infringing code is that SCO doesn't want it removed. If they don't reveal it, it remains a trade secret and if it's not removed they can force linux distributors to pay licensing fees effectively hijacking linux (2.4 and later) as their property. In this case the only alternative for the Linux/OSS community would be to roll back the kernel to 2.2 (SCO claims this kernel is clean) and completely rewrite all the additions to bring it back to current functionality. A big time set back by any standards. Again this is a tinfoil hat scenario, but given SCO's behavior I wouldn't put it past them.

    91. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That contamination could have easily come directly from SCO's own developers! They have their own distro and their guys working on integration, so what the hay? Who can you point fingers to? They say they didn't do it and point fingers at IBM and at miscellanious "incapable" (from SCO's opinion) kernel hackers that somehow had SCO's source code. IBM...well, they haven't said anything at all. However others are pointing fingers back at SCO. Novell is saying SCO doesn't have a foot to stand on anyway and is making the FUD claim. Others are saying that common code from BSD could be populating both SCO's product AND Linux. It's very likely SCO knows just how nebulous and unproveable all this is and is banking on playing on the uncertainty to win some gains. Man, I certainly would NOT want to be the judge that's gonna have to listen to all this tripe. I certainly hope he's halfway cluefull of all these issues...

    92. Re:Has anybody considered by antiMStroll · · Score: 1
      To state the very, very obvious, GNU code by definition is publicly available. It would be a simplistic matter for Microsoft to freely download GNU code from public FTP sites and examine its worth. The GNU model encourages it. It would be almost impossible for GNU coders to do the same of Microsoft's code. The federal justice system discourages it.

      Especially as we have 80 lines of identical code including comments which is the real kicker.

      Which, from the above, makes it far more likely it went from GNU to SCO.

    93. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have somebody who _says_ that 80 lines of code including comments are identical but who has entered into a secret agreement with SCO that lets SCO control what they say.

      Its Non-Disclosure Agreement, not a Must-Lie to Enhance Claim Agreement.

      I think that there are a lot of Slashdotters in denial*.

      *Denial - Its not a river in Egypt.

    94. Re:Has anybody considered by JesseL · · Score: 1

      It's trademarks that have to be defended or lost, not copyrights or patents.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    95. Re:Has anybody considered by Rabid+Penguin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IANAL, but from my understanding, the only major issues here are copyright on specific sections of code and the possible breach of contract by IBM. Copyright does apply to your first case of essentially copying code using different variable/function names, but not the design of the system.

      The design of UNIX is not a trade secret, it is broadly published in Operating Systems books, the BSD kernels, and the API component is controlled by standards groups. To win a claim based on design using copyright law, the code would not only have to be similar in function, but nearly identical in form (excluding changed variable names, or other trivial changes), and from what I've seen of Linux and BSD internals, this is not the case.

      Besides, broad protection of a design is generally a patent issue, of which SCO has very few, and the original UNIX patents have expired.

    96. Re:Has anybody considered by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      It doesn't really matter if they reveal the alleged infringing code or not. There are many web sites that carry the whole Linux kernel source, and many companies that package and distribute that code, and/or sell service contracts. Trade secret status requires that the secret not be shared without something like an NDA to lock it down, but once the secret escapes into the wild, its all over. If it's in the Linux kernel, it's not a secret.

      At this point, all SCO has is the possibility of copyright infringement and/or IP theft. It makes no sense to conceal the infringing code.

      Besides which, now that SCO has announced that they believe the Linux kernel to contain infringing code, they have to allow the Linux community the chance to correct the situation. Only an extremely SCO-biased judge would let them keep on milking the cash-cow of copyright infringement without insisting that the community be allowed to replace the alleged infringing code

    97. Re:Has anybody considered by NathanBFH · · Score: 1

      I'm not a lawyer either, but does the fact that the GPL retains the copyright owner play into this?

      i.e. even if SCO releases a Linux port, isn't the kernel code still copyright GNU (or whoever owns the copyright to the kernel)

    98. Re:Has anybody considered by Rock+Ridge · · Score: 1

      $CO claims that IBM leaked the IP into Linux, so, if that is true, then the leaked code is probably in some of IBM's contributions: in these ports: S390, ppc, and ppc64. Also, some filesystem code. Just trying to help ...

    99. Re:Has anybody considered by Fished · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What's wrong with everything? They are making some fairly outrageous claims against the Linux kernel, and have provided nothing to substantiate them. They are sueing one company (IBM) to the tune of $1 Billion, and have threatened a thousand other companies with unspecified legal action without any substantiating evidence.

      Like it or not, it's not enough to say "we think you might be infringing, please stop." If they want us to take them seriously, they have got to provide enough evidence to allow us to evaluate their claims. And that much evidence is, as you put it, "everything."

      Further, this is not unreasonable. If SCO's account of events is correct, any trade-secret value of the code in question is irrevocably compromised already. Why should they not make the code available? Why should they not make it possible for us to cure the alleged infraction? Why should they be able to make broad accusations against us without providing us any evidence whatsoever?

      (Hint: License fees in excess of $10 million from Microsoft.)

      --
      "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    100. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent point! Wouldn't SCO have to prove that
      the code in question was "Clean Roomed" at their
      own site. And produce the developers and logs
      with the times those developers did this proprietory code?

    101. Re:Has anybody considered by attobyte · · Score: 1

      I think it is more of a case that SCO stole GPL code instead of the other way around. It will all come out in trail. They have to proof the own the code first.

      Mike

      --
      I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!

      Mike

    102. Re:Has anybody considered by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Of course-- although SCO makes a big deal about SMP on x86 as being their pride and joy. No one, they say, could possibly prepare an 8 CPU SMP OS, unless thay had the power of UNIXâ behind them. SCO's focus on x86 implies that the infringing code is all over the place, and not confined to the ppc, ppc64 and 390 varieties.

    103. Re:Has anybody considered by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      You've cited a mix of BSD and SVR4 distributions. Assuming that the BSD distros are insulated from further barratry, the SVR4 users (HP, Sun, etc) could still be subject to license fee hikes-- as the Linux alternative might well be closed off.

      No more
      SCO: We've been thinking of raising your licensing fees.
      Target: Yes, well, we've been thinking of shipping more systems with Linux.

    104. Re:Has anybody considered by tkg · · Score: 1

      If it's in the Linux kernel, it's not a secret.

      I disagree. Unless someone can point to it and say for certain 'this is it' the secret is still a secret and anything else is just guessing. How the courts would view this is another matter however, and your view may be the one they take.

      As to wheather or not SCO 'have' to allow the Linux community to correct the situation, common decency may say so, but reality says that it's a matter of whose lawyers make the better argument.

    105. Re:Has anybody considered by Angry+Pixie · · Score: 1

      Which leads to an interesting scenario: SCO, in dire need of exposure and money, pulls the same stunt as that guy who tried to trademark Linux. The community gets up in arms, and SCO goes around trying to legitimize its claim, and accidently (and at a shock to them) uncovers real unauthorized code in the kernel. Whooppee! Bona fide financial windfall from a sham of a claim!

    106. Re:Has anybody considered by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1

      Yeah, most people who think rationally have considred that, in the particulars of the IBM case, SCO might actually have some case.

      I tend to think that SCO *may* have a better case than most /.ers give them credit for. Everyone seems to be focusing on "historic" unix and not on the project Monterey, which is pretty much where they've said the violation comes from. All that they would have to show is that IBM took IP from that project that they didn't have the rights to and submitted it into the Linux kernel.

      Having said that I'm still not sure they'll win. If it was an obvious and egredious violation IBM would have taken care of it when SCO first approached them. Not to mention that IBM is well known for making developers jump thru a lot of legal hoops *just for such a reason*. I suspect that its a lot more complicated than simply SCO owns the offending code. I find it hard to believe that IBM would agree to a program with SCO where they'd co-develop something, but IBM wouldn't retain the rights to it.

      Not to mention, if there was such a deal where IBM wasn't allowed to do anything with the Monterey code I suspect that SCO would also be bound by that agreement as well, which makes their "we're losing business because they stole our stuff" arguement bunk, since they technically wouldn't have been able to use it either.

    107. Re:Has anybody considered by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Redhat might migrate to the new clean version of the tree and be forced to discontinue support for the older versions.

      They already don't support older versions (unless prehaps a customer has negotiated a special contract).

      For example, RedHat 6.2 came out in 2000, and is unsupported. You cannot install it on a system with a Pentium4 chip, even though it would take a minor patch to the installer to allow this.

      Redhat abandons old versions faster than Microsoft does. (Of course, since they allow users to upgrade for $0, they could argue that it's not as bad in their case)

      Anyhow, if a "new, legal Linux" is created, Redhat could just back-port those changes into their old products. Then they could continue supporting their old releases by saying "Before we can help you with your problem, sir, you should take these patches and upgrade to version 6.2.1 or 7.3.1"

    108. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey asswipe,

      people were already saying this 2 months ago.

      "whatever code they will show, it still needs to be proved that they own the code in question"

      it's completely valid. and with opensource documentation, ala cvs, and other historical "snapshots", this question could have been answered by now.

      sco, you and everyone else knew this was coming. why are you trying to pretend to be indignant?

      sco comes out with their proof months ago, and we would have been a lot closer to the answer.

      why don't you fuck off.

      -an mcse who uses closed source.

    109. Re:Has anybody considered by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1

      I think this actually a pretty telling statement. Yes, if there was a violation they you do sue Linus (and the other copyright holders). Remember, their arguement for punative damages is that Linux (using thier IP) has taken business away from them. *IF* this is true then they should have sued as soon as a violation was present, thus protecting their market.

    110. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Especially as we have 80 lines of identical code
      >> including comments

      > No. We have somebody who _says_ that 80 lines of
      > code including comments are identical but who has
      > entered into a secret agreement with SCO that lets
      >SCO control what they say.

      No we have someone who says SCO showed them chunks of code and said the code came from the SCO source and the Linux source.

    111. Re:Has anybody considered by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      It's absolutely not copyright GNU (GNU is software, and can't hold copyrights). It's also not copyright FSF (the GNU organization), because they have their own non-Linux kernel to work on.

      Instead, the Linux kernel is copyright the many individuals who contribute to it. Most prominently, Linus Torvalds.

    112. Re:Has anybody considered by stwrtpj · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's been said here before - if SCO tell us which bits are "stolen", those bits would be replaced very fast by the kernel developers. This would not be optimum for SCO, because they could not then demand licensing from all Linux users.

      Except they can't, and any judge worth his salt would see through this for two reasons:

      • Once a trade secret is out, it is no longer secret and can never be made secret again. Any damages collected are purely punitive in nature, and would be against the infinger and not the end users. End users are NOT LIABLE, period.
      • When a violation such as this occurs, it is the legal responsibility of the infinged party to mitigate damages. In this case, the ONLY way damages can be mitigated is by revealing the duplicated code so that it can be excised from the kernel. The idea that revealing the code would only allow the Linux developers to "launder" the code as SCO has stated is ludicrous, because there would be ample evidence remaining in the older versions of the kernel.

      What SCO is doing is FUD, plain and simple. They're just drumming up publicity for themselves and trying to scare people into compliance with their ridiculous demands. If IBM's lawyers have any balls whatsoever, they will countersue for anticompetitive practices.

      --
      Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
    113. Re:Has anybody considered by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      but doesn't this mean SCO have released their IP under GPL?

      That has been argued. But courts won't hold someone responsible for a contract made in response to fraudulent information from the other party.

      Besides, the GPL says that "you must apply GPL when you make changes". SCO alleges that they didn't make changes to put their code in Linux- they say it was already there.

      Extreme example: Suppose a company (Sun) hosts a free software archive on the web. A hacker breaks into their network, and copies proprietary code into a GPL package on their public server. When someone downloads that, Sun has distributed a GPL program containing their own changes. Have their really put their entire codebase under GPL? Of course not, they didn't know it was in there, and weren't making a willful decision. Same as with SCO: "We didn't know it was there"

    114. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately comparing changelog entries doesn't really work as evidence. How can we no that they didn't alter their logs?

      Ahh, but once you know who is responsible for putting the infringing code into the kernel, you can put them on the stand, under oath, and that's evidence.

    115. Re:Has anybody considered by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Wow, Goerge W Bush is posting to slashdot now.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&gt ;
      Hey! You take that back! I've been called a lot of things, but that's the worst!

      Seriously, do you believe that all corporations act ethically all the time ?.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>
      No, but I believe that most corporations act ethically most of the time. And I believe that "they're just trying to maximize profits" is not a good excuse for unethical behavior, because lots of corporations manage to maximize profits without resorting to unethical behavior.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    116. Re:Has anybody considered by nr · · Score: 1

      Yes, and how do we know its not the other way around? that SCO infact stole this particular code from Linux kernel.

      Two independent programmer can come up with simliar code. If you where to give a specfication for a specific function to 20 diffrent C programmers, and say "implement this". Dont you think some of the code they will write will look simliar?

    117. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We assume it is a lie because there is no need to include SCO code when better alternatives exist. Besides style difference (UNIX and Linux have _very_ different styles) it would take more work to add in UNIX code to Linux than to simply rewrite the portion. Comments are also very common. I've found that since many coders use comments in the same way (to tell what the upcomming chunk of non-obvious code does) many comments may be the same, even in 4 or 5 different clean-room implementations of the same thing. Why? Because the people that hack on the kernels tend to think alike.

    118. Re:Has anybody considered by jasperc · · Score: 1
      Whether or not SCO wins, this will be a wakeup call. Before accepting GNU tools for use in the business, managers are now going to be asking, "how can we be certain that this code is legit?" It is a very valid question. All source has pedigree -- are there any portions of this code that might be discovered to belong to someone else? If so, what protects us from having that code yanked out from under us? Somebody could sue us for damages, refuse to license the code to us, and shut down our entire operation.

      Yes, exactly the reason for this whole set of shenanigans. I have no doubt that it's not coincidence that we are seeing a bunch of "linux-busters" on the scene together again--Aberdeen, MS and now SCO (looking to be bought up? Looking for increased market share? Who cares?)--trying to break up something sucessful in any way they can, especially since their standard methods have yet to succeed (linux has taken the MS maxim--"give it away for free and *everyone* will grab it"--and run with it).

      --
      I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
    119. Re:Has anybody considered by hammock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where did the code come from?

      Find out which IBM engineers commited patches to the kernel.
      Find out which SCO engineers commited patches to the kernel.

      You just narrowed it down. It's probably pretty easy to find out what code it is.

      It's also just as likely that SCO copied the code from Linux, since we can trust Linus' logs, but SCO could fabricate thier own logs at a moments notice.

    120. Re:Has anybody considered by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Gee, even my corrections are moderated as "Troll".

      It doesn't bother me though. Calling people names is one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book. It usually follows an argument that strikes too close to the truth.

    121. Re:Has anybody considered by Antaeus+Feldspar · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That maybe SCO are telling the truth - that maybe there is ripped off code? Undoubtedly if the claim was that MS had included GNU code in their apps, people would automatically presume guilt; why the immediate defensiveness now?


      I don't know how "still not believing their claims" translates to "immediate defensiveness".

      To be frank, one major mistake that SCO made -- or maybe it wasn't a mistake -- is what keeps me from putting stock in their claims now. Namely, when asked why they weren't showing proof right away, they claimed that if they let anyone know where the duplicated code was, the Linux community would "launder" it away. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt and presuming they didn't mean that the actual code would get laundered off of millions of Linux CDs, the distributed nature of Linux development still means that any evidence of wrongdoing is out there in too many places to be hidden. Of course, any refutation of SCO's claims is also out there in too many places to be hidden, but the Linux community can't start presenting its defense until SCO actually gives details on which code is supposedly copied. As Miles Vorkosigan says in one of the most recent books in the Vorkosigan Saga, "Correction: I am not charged, I am slandered. There is an unsubtle legal difference." If this goes to court, then SCO will have to detail its accusations and IBM and Linux will get a chance to argue the charges. As it is, however, SCO gets to parade these accusations throughout worldwide news -- we've already seen the damages being done, with Linux deployments being re-thought -- and IBM and Linux are put in the impossible position of having to prove a negative, with the information of what they supposed to have actually done -- which code is supposed to have come from SCO -- withheld from them. Don't you think that calls for defensiveness, when we've been under this attack for a month and the opportunity to answer the charges and clear ourselves withheld on such a flimsy pretext?

      Even though the ludicrous claim of "laundering" has hurt SCO's credibility, I wonder if it wasn't actually a successful strategic move. Because it has drawn people's attention to the truth or falsity of whether there's common code between SCO and Linux, and that's not the key point at issue here. The key point at issue is not whether 80 lines of code including comments are identical. The key point -- the one I think SCO doesn't want people to be looking at -- is whether that code is SCO's.

      There are plenty of plausible explanations for how large sections of common code could be in both products; SCO's theory that a major industry leader, IBM, ripped off a major industry loser, SCO, and wasn't even smart enough to cover its tracks, is only one of them, and not the most likely. The most likely is that the code in question is in the BSD codebase that has already been ruled freely redistributable, and SCO's draconian NDA really cleared the field of anyone with the qualifications to recognize that code. Another is that SCO ripped off Linux, not the other way around. Comparing the dates that the disputed code was added to the kernel codebase in each case would answer that question in a hurry -- but note that Linux can not defend itself against such charges until SCO actually answers what code is supposedly theirs. Once SCO reveals that, of course, then IBM and Linux can start searching to provide proof of prior development or prior art -- months after SCO has started this whole smearing campaign.

      As far as I can see, the only scenario that doesn't require somebody, somewhere being really grotesquely stupid is that SCO was hoping for a buyout all along, and counted on that buyout happening before they were ever forced to make their slanderous accusations into actual charges. Once they made actual charges, the game would be up; once it was known what the code in question was, the truth about who actually owns that code might come out. And trying to keep people from realizing that that was the real question -- that's the only reason I can think of for a ridiculous delaying tactic such as "we can't provide any details on what IBM supposedly did because then the evidence might get 'laundered'."
      --
      If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
    122. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because linux fanboys are just that, fanboys. MS=EVIL, LINUX=WONDERFUL. It just ain't that simple. That's why I hate this dumbass site.

    123. Re:Has anybody considered by cgreuter · · Score: 1
      Especially as we have 80 lines of identical code including comments which is the real kicker.

      IIRC, they weren't identical, just very similar. Given that the person who reported this is not a programmer, I wouldn't be surprised if the similarities in the comments were along the lines of the phrases "signal handler", "process', "page fault" and so on--stuff that's ordinary CS terminology.

      Alternately, they were things defined in POSIX with comments taken from the description in the standard. The set of signal numbers comes right to mind. I have the SCO and Linux versions of these side by side right now and they're pretty similar. The comments are slightly different (the GNU version cites the origin while SCO does not) but I can see how an unschooled reviewer could consider them similar. I wouldn't be surprised if the offending code came from there, stdio.h or one of the other standard parts of the system.

    124. Re:Has anybody considered by eer · · Score: 1

      Additionally, SCO's unwitting publishing of Linux code does not relieve the fact that they gave their own stuff away.

      This, I think, gets to the heart of the danger to the open source community - claims that "a thousand eyes are better/more secure/keep you safe from misappropriated code" only works if any one is looking at the code.

      Such a supposition, if untested, unrequired, undocumented, is infinitely worse than security by obscurity or "statistically unlikely event", because it lulls the lazy into thinking (wishing?) someone else is doing their job for them.

      When was the last time YOU reviewed the source to your glibc library? gzip? getuid()? Muchless sprintf(), scanf(), or putc()? gcc? ls?

      The danger is that Linux may, in fact, be the "Heathkit" of computing software, in a world where "Sony Walkman" is what customers want. Steve Jobs (and Alan Kay, et al) are right - until computers are appliances, they'll just be niche products only useful to those who understand how to make them kind of work.

      Heathkit and Sony Walkman are likely the trademarks of their respective owners, if indeed they're trademarked.

    125. Re:Has anybody considered by shaitand · · Score: 1

      If it's in the kernel, the kernel is open to public viewing and therefore it's already been revealed to the public. It might as well be etched into the side of the chase manhatten building in new york.

    126. Re:Has anybody considered by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It could have found it's way from Linux to SCO's code. It could have bubbled it's way up from the earlier BSD releases. Who knows ?

      That horny little penguin sure spreads his seeds all over. The Clinton OS.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    127. Re:Has anybody considered by kaytea2k · · Score: 1

      Hasn't anyone considered just removing the alleged code from the distro?

    128. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they had ample time and full access to the source to audit what they were distributing in the Caldera Linux kernel and they were negligent for not doing so. They have the obligation to audit both before they began distributing the first release and before each new release. They demonstrated that they are capable of doing the audit since they would have had to in order to decide that their trade secrets had been misappropriated before filing suit against IBM.

    129. Re:Has anybody considered by arose · · Score: 1

      Cool, all you need is 5 people with the book to distribute their fair 20%.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    130. Re:Has anybody considered by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      If IP theft occurred, then the actionable part here extends only to the thief. And thats it... SCO would not have any leg to stand on to sue companies or users who did not personally steal the IP from SCO.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    131. Re:Has anybody considered by shaitand · · Score: 1

      You'll find more copies of windows preinstalled on pc's they have on the table off to the side...

    132. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MWAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

      (Ok, now the chase manhattan people should be paranoid ;)

    133. Re:Has anybody considered by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Especially as we have 80 lines of identical code including comments which is the real kicker.

      If I was a judge of a $1-billion case over 80 lines of code out of millions, I would be tempted to find the plaintiff in contempt.

    134. Re:Has anybody considered by shaitand · · Score: 1

      hmmm personally I believe and have seen that corporations (basically all of them). Act unethically absolutely anywhere they have something to gain and can get away with it, everything from accounting games like enron (every corporation plays these games, every single one, all of it is unethical and some of it is legal). If it's in public, they put as good a face on it as they can. If it's not, they still put as good a face on it as they can. Most of the unethical actions are perfectly legal but that does NOT make them ethical...

    135. Re:Has anybody considered by ctve · · Score: 1

      You either need someone to testify to doing it, or some form of sealed or logged proof.

    136. Re:Has anybody considered by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      This, I think, gets to the heart of the danger to the open source community - claims that "a thousand eyes are better/more secure/keep you safe from misappropriated code" only works if any one is looking at the code.

      Hm, this is true, but theres more to it than just that. I've been through large chunks of the kernel source a few times while screwing with writing drivers and schedulers and stuff for OS class, so I can say I've seen the misappropriated code....

      Except that I have no way of knowing it was misappropriated... the only way to know would be to have non-developers become tainted with as much proprietary information as they can remember, and then review the code. Since they're tainted they wouldn't be able develop (anything at all, probably...) so their only value would be to make sure something inappropriate doesn't make it into the source.

      And that assumes that the people reading the source don't have an ulterior motive in letting the misappropriated code accidentially "slip by". Like, say, a billion dollar lawsuit ulterior.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    137. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word is reMUNeration, meaning getting money for something. ReNUMeration means getting counted, again. Don't use words you don't understand.

    138. Re:Has anybody considered by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I imagine the reason they don't want to publically give out this information because that would allow the OSS community to find out where the code actually came from.

      The code would also be changed overnight, weakening their case to a point that the judge would throw it out immediately. Do you think their stock would pancake to below 25Â?

    139. Re:Has anybody considered by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      First, SCO is only showing people what they want them to see.

      Second, it's only SCO word that it's their code. Who says they didn't cut and paste parts of the Linux kernel into their UnixWare? Linux has a open, documented history of it's source code. SCO does not. They have to prove that it's their code somehow.

      Third, it's 80 lines out of millions. Are we to assume that those few lines of code seriously change the nature of Linux. True it's copyright infringement, but really "devaluing their product" has to mean more than 80 lines.

      Fourth, their behavior has not been that of a company who is bent on protecting it's IP. They claim IBM gave the code to Linux. They don't contact Linus or anybody in kernel development to verify the infringement. They don't ask Linus to remove the code. They don't ask Linus help to testify against IBM. They don't verify that they have a claim to the code. Only after being challenged by Novell do they go digging into 6-year old agreements. No, they just start suing IBM.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    140. Re:Has anybody considered by judmarc · · Score: 1

      How ironic that businesses should start to question the sources of *open source* software while ignoring the same potential problem in *closed source* software.

      For an example of how much more difficult closed sourcing makes verification, look no further than the case at hand. If SCO's source was equally as open as the Linux source they're complaining about so loud and long, we'd all have been able to verify the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of their allegations almost as soon as they were made.

    141. Re:Has anybody considered by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Unless you sign a deal not to expose them, I don't think trade secrets are protected.

      In addition to reasonable attempts to keep them secret, a trade secret also needs to be sufficiently important as to give the possessor a competitive advantage in the marketplace in order to deserve protection. Are these alleged 80 lines of code really that important as to make Linux significantly more competitive? Are the comments that dilute the code's functionally significant?

    142. Re:Has anybody considered by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
      Most of the patents except SySVR4 have expired.

      Since Linux is based on SySV technology its possible to be sued for patent infringement as long as you use it. Even after its expired, SCO can still sue you for damages if you have used SySV without their permission.

      My guess is Linux may become a BSD type system soon if SCO goes this route.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    143. Re:Has anybody considered by Arioch+of+Chaos · · Score: 1

      Technically, all users would have used unlicensed code. If someone "wrongfully" put the code in Linux, any licensing they did would be invalid since they had no right to do that. Thus, the code would be unlicensed. You cannot release my code under the GPL.

      --
      IAAAL - I am actually a lawyer ;-)
    144. Re:Has anybody considered by orcrist · · Score: 1

      Besides, the GPL says that "you must apply GPL when you make changes". SCO alleges that they didn't make changes to put their code in Linux- they say it was already there.

      No, it says (I'm also paraphrasing) "you must release the GPL'ed work or its derivatives under the GPL -- if you release it". The GPL only applies to distribution. If you don't distribute it's just another copyrighted work which you have a copy of. Like a book, you can mark it up, cut and paste, put in the cat's litter box, whatever...

      -chris

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
    145. Re:Has anybody considered by be-fan · · Score: 1

      You're assessment of "all of them" is clouded by your view of a few of them "Enron." There are lots of corporations that don't do this stuff. You don't hear about it on the evening news, because there is nothing interesting about someone doing what they're supposed to. I think a lot of your view is caused by the fact that a bigger a corporation gets, the more likely they are to resort to these kinds of tactics, while at the same time, they more noticible they are in the public eye.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    146. Re:Has anybody considered by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      Did you miss the trial. There was two of them. An original trial in which MS was found guilty and an appeal which upheld the original ruling unanimously.

      It seems like you left this planet during that time but lucky for you all documents are public.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    147. Re:Has anybody considered by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      The danger is that Linux may, in fact, be the "Heathkit" of computing software, in a world where "Sony Walkman" is what customers want.
      Somehow I doubt that there would be any Sony Walkmans if it weren't for such as HeathKit and KnightKit. Similarly the ubiquitous automobile would not exist in its current form if it weren't for Hot Rodders, Drag Strips, etc.

      The "thousand eyes" bit does work. Everybody can. It doesn't mean that anybody does, but if something funny seems to be going on, even I will take a look see. Most likely someone else will have found it first and done a better job of fixing it :-(

    148. Re:Has anybody considered by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

      Whether or not SCO wins, this will be a wakeup call. Before accepting GNU tools for use in the business, managers are now going to be asking, "how can we be certain that this code is legit?" It is a very valid question.

      Yes, because commercial organizations always do everything above board and never engage in lawsuits against each other.

      Or is the solution simply to buy products from the company that has bought the most judges lately?

    149. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although I disagree wholeheartedly with you, the troll moderations are undone (underrated).

    150. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the FUCK?!!!?? After posting I noticed that also AC comments after moderation revoke the moderation nowadays. I'll have to get me a new ID for making AC comments it seems.

    151. Re:Has anybody considered by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      More likely, IMHO, is trying to migrate back to a patched earlier version of the kernel such as the 2.0 series, before the allegedly SCO-originating code was added.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    152. Re:Has anybody considered by spencerogden · · Score: 1

      It would be pretty pointless to change the code overnight. With some many copies of the kernel source around, what are they going to do, change every single copy in the world? If the code is there, it will be found.

      --

      Spencer Ogden

    153. Re:Has anybody considered by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      How the hell could the code 'be changed overnight'? Do you think that a secretive team is going to remove all copies of linux-2.4.20.tar.gz from ftp servers and replace them with doctored versions that lack the SCO code?

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    154. Re:Has anybody considered by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      Actually SCO is on trial here. For its life.
      The court will decide whatever and ifever it decides, but the future of SCO will rest in the hands of its cusomers and suppliers. If they do not like SCO then SCO will cease to exist. "Are you now or have you ever been associated with SCO?"

    155. Re:Has anybody considered by bovinewasteproduct · · Score: 1

      Loads of code in Linux has come from BSD, which in turn came from UNIX, just like SCO's code.

      Then where are all of the BSD copyrights? There are not that many...

      If this code does not have a BSD and/or AT&T copyright, then it was NOT covered under the agreement.

      Can't have it both ways...

      BWP

    156. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone could copy and paste SCO code, he/she was also probably doing other things -- opening the Unix code in one window, and writing a similar Linux routine in another window, referring back to the Unix code for a "how-to". This is also illegal, as such things need to be done via clean room reverse engineering procedures.

      As I understand it, this sort of 'paraphrasing' is only illegal if it involves duplicating the struture and reasoning of a large portion of a work e.g. a whole paper or book, or at least a significant portion of it.

      One way to avoid any taint would be to employ the 'clean room' analygy that you describe, but in most cases simply restructuring the methods and rewriting the comments would add plenty of uncertainty to any copyright enfringement charge. Certainly this would have been sufficient in the case of 80 lines of code.

    157. Re:Has anybody considered by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Name a corporation that doesn't play accounting tricks. Everything from changing FIFO and LIFO to suit to Sony dividing off customer service for tax breaks to Enron, just because a practice is legal doesn't make it ethical.

    158. Re:Has anybody considered by Error27 · · Score: 1

      >>there's a good chance that big companies like Redhat might migrate to the new clean version of the tree and be forced to discontinue support for the older versions...

      First I disagree that there is a "good chance" of that happenning (SCO is still distributing the code on their website a year and a half after they found the violations). Second, if it would be a nightmare, then it's a nightmare that's already happenning. I don't remember offhand what errata kernel RedHat AS is using, but the others all use 2.4.20 and upgrading is no problem.

    159. Re:Has anybody considered by Rohan427 · · Score: 1

      Mensa member, beware of the high IQ

      Any REAL Mensa member knows that a high IQ is NOT an accurate measure of intelligence.

      PGA
      --
      Beware, I aced the Mensa tests and was smart enough not to join or brag. :P

    160. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If IBM is in trouble, so is Linux. IBM and Linux are like Butch and Sundance: they can't live without one another. If one becomes defunct, both do. IBM will be destroyed by SCO, and Linux will be bought out by Hilary Rosen and sent to Nunavit.

    161. Re:Has anybody considered by Error27 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      SCO hinted that the "problem" might be JFS code. That would make sense too. Unfortunately for SCO the Linux implementation is really a port from OS/2.

    162. Re:Has anybody considered by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      In my example, the corporation was distributing, releasing, and publishing the derivative works. By "making changes", I meant "distribute a derivative work".

      The GPL only applies to distribution.

      The GPL applies to copying. You must agree to the GPL when making a copy (modified or not), regardless of whether you distribute it. See the 3rd word of GPL section 3, and the 4th word of GPL section 4.

    163. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the code may be "ripped off" but it's most likely that any ripping off went from Linux to UnixWare rather than vice-versa...

      The whole thing strikes me as a stock-market swindle. It'd be nice if a skilled cracker broke into SCO's servers (not just DDOS'ed them) and retreived their internal email archives...

    164. Re:Has anybody considered by 73939133 · · Score: 1

      That maybe SCO are telling the truth - that maybe there is ripped off code? Undoubtedly if the claim was that MS had included GNU code in their apps, people would automatically presume guilt;

      Yes, and they would be right: we can look at the GNU code, we can trace its history, and therefore we can determine whether inclusion of it in Windows constitutes a copyright violation.

      why the immediate defensiveness now?

      Because SCO hasn't shown anything. For all we know, both Linux and SCO might have copied the code from BSD or other public sources.

      Furthermore, SCO seems to want more than they are due: they seem to want to control entire Linux distributions, code developed by thousands of independent contributors, while their alleged copyright violation is limited to at most a few chunks of code.

      If SCO came clear on what the offending source files are (they don't even have to give us their code, they just need to point out the source files and we could probably rewrite the entire files from scratch), the Linux community could fix this before anything even went to trial. They could still go around trying to sue individual users for past copyright violations, but that wouldn't give them much.

      But they don't tell us what the problem is because they think they are going to extort money out of the entire Linux community in perpetuity. It's not going to work, no matter what copyright violation may or may not have occurred.

    165. Re:Has anybody considered by hbar · · Score: 1
      How many thousands of lines of code are there in Linux (or any other OS) and how many blocks of 80 lines are singularly critical to the whole functioning of the OS ?

      shiznit% pwd
      /home/amax/src/linux-2.5.64
      shiznit% cat `find . -name "*.[ch]"` | wc -l -
      zsh: argument list too long: cat
      0 -
      shiznit% find . -name "*.[ch]" | wc -l
      12071
      (yikes!!)
      shiznit% touch foo; for i in `find . -name "*.[ch]"`; do cat $i >> foo; done
      shiznit% wc -l foo
      4961600 foo
      shiznit%
      --
      Aaron Maxwell - redsymbol.net
    166. Re:Has anybody considered by MeanMF · · Score: 1

      True, but one cannot deny the fact that SCO does act very weird. Usually when some company "steals" GPL code, the copyright holder gives the company a chance to correct his mistake

      So if I go rob a bank and I get caught, the bank should give me a chance to give the money back, and if I do everything is fine?

    167. Re:Has anybody considered by 73939133 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It would be pretty pointless to change the code overnight.

      It wouldn't be "pointless" at all. The goal is not to hide past infringement, it is to avoid future infringement. It would mean that Linux users could use the next release of the kernel without worrying about future violations of SCO's copyrights or patents.

      If the code is there, it will be found.

      Nobody is trying to hide anything. People would still be liable for past violations, but they would be liable for that anyway.

      If you unknowingly violate someone's copyright and you take quick steps to fix it, you are probably going to get off easily. SCO is trying to create a situation where they are informing everybody that they are violating their copyright but not permitting them to fix it (other than by buying SCO's software), and that's just sleazy. It probably won't fly either. Once the source files are identified, they will get rewritten from scratch, and their claims will be history.

    168. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The situation is pretty similar in many other software houses. A lot of them are very hypocritic. I know someone works for a very successful computer security software company. On one hand, those guys vehemently defend their "intellectual property", on the other hand, they "take reference" from the latest open sources ("kernel IPtable, spamAssassin, snort etc etc) religiously.

      They have no trouble showing the identical opensource code in their propritery software ;-)

    169. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IBM is in trouble like the little kid who stole a lolly-pop.

    170. Re:Has anybody considered by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      80 lines? which includes comments? amongst a base of tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands, millions??) is THAT all?

      Man, i can produce more code sneezing on my keyboard...

      SCO better apply for a patent on their molehill-to-mountain converter real quick...

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    171. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you remember what happened to that kid? He *died* from tetinus.

    172. Re:Has anybody considered by Unordained · · Score: 1

      i'm just curious, for all those millions of lines of code, how SCO might have found this copyright/patent/secret violation, unless they planted it?

      i don't find myself browsing cvs respositories across the world, seeing how many lines of code i can match up between my own private stash, and all previous versions of code in the world ... the algorithms for running that kind of check are nasty, speed-wise. it'd be more trouble than breaking a lot of encryption algorithms, and take at least as long. and even then, i'd just be looking for trouble: even if i do match up a bunch of lines of code, that's barely a hint at a problem. most code looks the same to me, especially low-level code. there's no reason to get really creative with it or re-invent the wheel. i wouldn't be surprised to find someone else had written very similar code (note that the article says the code looked "strikingly similar", not identical bit-for-bit. that makes it even harder to find, and even harder to prove to be stolen property.)

      unless they were tipped off by someone 'in the know' about the code-migration? unless that was an anonymous tip ... methinks someone's going to be testifying about their sources of information.

    173. Re:Has anybody considered by JoeBuck · · Score: 1

      Let's not lose context here. The Linux kernel is roughly 4.7 million lines of code. If the duplicated code is in a device driver, it could be because the same person contributed a device driver for the same device to both OSes. There can be any number of other explanations.

    174. Re:Has anybody considered by JoeBuck · · Score: 1

      But SCO isn't alleging that Linux is a pirated copy. The analogy would be to rap artists using samples without authorization. If they could find 4,700 stolen lines, then 0.1% of Linux would be copied, and that's like 0.2 seconds of a three-minute song. They allege "hundreds of lines", and have shown 80, though they haven't offered any evidence about the direction of copying.

    175. Re:Has anybody considered by Sphere1952 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If they don't come up with a whole lot more than 80 lines the judge will throw it out immediately anyway. Copyright infringement requires substantial copying of the material.

      The actual case law is rather complicated, but given that the code in question is buried in the system and represents an insubstantial portion of the copyrighted work there is no copyright infringement.

      --
      Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
    176. Re:Has anybody considered by mr3038 · · Score: 1
      If IBM's lawyers have any balls whatsoever, they will countersue for anticompetitive practices.

      So the big picture is: SCO sues IBM without any real evidence -> SCO looses -> IBM countersues SCO for anticompetitive practices and lost revenue -> IBM wins -> SCO cannot pay -> IBM owns SCO -> the problem is gone.

      --
      _________________________
      Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
    177. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doing fine, aside from the whole dying thing.

    178. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this code does not have a BSD and/or AT&T copyright, then it was NOT covered under the agreement.

      Can't have it both ways...

      Oh yes you can. If the code was ripped off from BSD then that is a copyright violation but not one that SCO can sue over.

    179. Re:Has anybody considered by gandy909 · · Score: 1

      That makes no sense. If that were true then I (or anyone else) can force you to pay me for any ol' code you use, claiming it is a trade secret, but not reveal to you what code it is that you are using.

      --

      (Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
    180. Re:Has anybody considered by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      If the Linux community wasn't going to accept code as evidence, why ask for it in the first place?

      The Linux community has not seen the code! Some third party who's not familiar with the history of either Linux or Unix has seen the code, and says that indeed, there are some common fragments. Well, ok, but what the community has been asking all along is for evidence not only of commonality, but evidence that it was SCO's code in the first place! And we still don't have that last. Without that, it could easily be that the code came from Linux, and SCO stole it (and not the other way around), or it could be that the code came from BSD (in which case, both SCO and Linux have an equal right to use it).

      The fact is that the development of Linux has been done in public, and it's a matter of public record when changes were made to the code base. SCO seems to be claiming that if they reveal what the offending code is, that someone will magically make it disappear from Linux, and kill their case. Well, guess what? That's just not possible! Linux is too public, and too widely mirrored and archived. The ONLY danger SCO faces if they reveal this supposedly stolen code is that they won't be able to prove it's theirs! And that's going to be an issue for them when they get to court in any case, so the whole hiding-the-code thing is just plain stupid!

    181. Re:Has anybody considered by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "This would not be optimum for SCO, because they could not then demand licensing from all Linux users."

      They cannot do this without throwing away their veil of secrecy.

      I have source to at least 7 different kernel versions sitting around, mostly old RH cds. They would need to tell me which ones they want licensing fees for. And if their code is not compiled into the base kernel for all possible kernel configurations, then they would need to tell me what combinations of options cause their code to be included in the kernel. After all, if it is only in say jfs and smp code, I won't have it in my kernel, I won't be using it, and I won't owe them any licensing fee.

      This is one difference open source makes. If the code were in a commercial product, they could announce which versions infringe. They would need to be much more specific here.

      If they do indeed give out the specific information of what kernel versions and what modules infringe, it would be trivial to ferret out the offending code and be done with them.

    182. Re:Has anybody considered by sn00ker · · Score: 1
      No we have someone who says SCO showed them chunks of code and said the code came from the SCO source and the Linux source.
      Not only that, they showed the code to "analysts" who're known OSS-bashers. DiDio may as well just admit that she wants to have Bill's babies, and we all know that Aberdeen are just opinion whores - For sale to the highest bidder.
      Until the code is subject to independant (not RH, or IBM, or SuSE, but also not Aberdeen, or DiDio, or any of Bill's mates) review by clueful people, the validity of the suit remains in question.

      --
      "God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
    183. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are making some fairly outrageous claims... and have provided nothing to substantiate them.

      If it's good enough for Dubya, it's good enough for SCO.

    184. Re:Has anybody considered by jmccay · · Score: 1

      Have you considered that one must have access to the code to copy it? Who has access to SCO proprietary code? SCO does, but does anybody else? If not, then it must have been SCO themselves who put the code in their--especially if the code is so identical that the comments are the same. Someone must have had access to the SCO code, and I bet it was someone from SCO itself.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    185. Re:Has anybody considered by sn00ker · · Score: 1
      As far as I can see, the only scenario that doesn't require somebody, somewhere being really grotesquely stupid is that SCO was hoping for a buyout all along, and counted on that buyout happening before they were ever forced to make their slanderous accusations into actual charges.
      That would be a very risky proposition on SCO's part. IBM will not hesitate to counter-sue SCO if it turns out that the suit was not just frivilous, but out-right malicious. And while Micro$oft (how appropriate) might be sitting on the world's largest pile'o'cash[TM] and more than happy to throw some SCO's way, IBM's still a great white shark to Bill's piranha.

      --
      "God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
    186. Re:Has anybody considered by firewood · · Score: 1
      The GPL applies to copying. You must agree to the GPL when making a copy (modified or not), regardless of whether you distribute it. See the 3rd word of GPL section 3, and the 4th word of GPL section 4.

      Stallman's privacy clause. You can make all the copies you want without any restrictions, as long at you don't distribute any of those copies.

    187. Re:Has anybody considered by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      And which clause is that, exactly? (The words "privacy" and "private" are not part of the GPL)

    188. Re:Has anybody considered by beakburke · · Score: 1

      why is changing from lifo to fifo unethical?? I think this is why the previous poster said that everyone has a different idea of exactly what is ethical. We mostly agree on a couple things, but not everything.

      --
      ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
    189. Re:Has anybody considered by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      I just wish those getting cease and desist orders would respond on the lines of "The OS code we are using is a compilation of separately licensed products, collectively using multiple licenses (GPL, BSD, etc). Here is a list of our OS software. Please pick out which one of our products you claim is infringing and we will take appropriate measures regarding the matter."

      At least that might get SCO on the record w/regard to what part of Linux is infringing. If they blanket claim all of it is infringing, every honest contributor can claim they were libeled by SCO. SCO would be legally raidoactive at that point with potential judgments against them in the inevitable class action suit.

    190. Re:Has anybody considered by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, $1 probably isn't possible legally, but $200 is...

      In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.

      Now if it was an IBM employee who stole the code, that's not going to be applicable. But if it wasn't, and IBM can prove that it wasn't, then we might very well see a $200 fine imposed.

      The big question is if a judge or jury will find any actual damages. If the code really is critical to the OS that's certainly possible. But it's hard for me to imagine such critical code coming from some unknown source and no one bothering to verify the integrity of that contributor. I don't know, we'll see, maybe.

    191. Re:Has anybody considered by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 1
      I'll consider the code as having been given once I have:
      1. The code, including line numbers, filenames, and the whole sourcefile from UNIXWARE it is based on.
      2. The SCO changelog showing the code goes back a long time.
      3. Linux's changelog showing the code doesn't go back a long time.

      For a court, we might add #4: it compiles to the exact same binary as one they've released. If it doesn't, or if they never released the product, then there is no way to prove the code is legit. They could have gone back at any point and altered or added code as desired. Compiling to a known-published binary is the only way to verify.

      --
      My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
    192. Re:Has anybody considered by cookd · · Score: 1

      But that's just it: we can't examine their source, so it is harder to prove wrongdoing! :)

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    193. Re:Has anybody considered by MrGrendel · · Score: 1

      IBM assigned their Linux copyrights to the FSF. I don't know why this story has not been posted on slashdot before. It has a number of quotes straight from Eben Moglen, the FSF general counsel, that clear up a number of issues that have been debated endlessly here.

    194. Re:Has anybody considered by j_w_d · · Score: 1

      The issue is what constitutes "proof." There is a distinction between proof and evidence. Evidence can often be construed in multiple ways. In fact the more ways in which evidence can be construed the less strength it has. This is SCO's problem at present.

      Eighty lines of code is evidence of something, but without additional information, there is no means of determining what it is evidence of. In order to be proof of SCO's claim, they first have to show that this code existed in code that they own and which is older than the comparable code in Linux. Second, they also need to show that the code was not introduced into the Linux codebase by Caldera themselves. Those eighy lines could just as easily be evidence of fraud on SCO's part, if they know that either it was introduced into the Linux code base by Caldera, or in fact was "borrowed" from the GPL Linux source BY Caldera or SCO. It could be a cynical attempt to raid IBM for income that SCO seems to be unable to generate for themselves. Right now there is STILL no "proof" of anything available and the use of NDA's and seriously OS challenged reviewers does not help the SCO case.

      It is pointless to distribute equivocal evidence, except to muddy water and manipulate opinion. It would certainly not be pointless to distribute proof, if their concerns are honest and they want a misuse of their IP remedied, since the problem, if such it is, would be fixed swiftly. In short, presently it does not appear that SCO wants the code removed from the Linux code base.

      --
      ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
    195. Re:Has anybody considered by MrGrendel · · Score: 1
      According to Eben Moglen, not only have they released their IP under the GPL, but it doesn't even matter that they kept on distributing for months after they discovered the infringement. Even if they had stopped distributing as soon as they discovered the offending code, they would still have no right to prohibit others from using or distributing Linux. He doesn't seem to think that it matters whether or not they knew about the Unix code; they distributed under the terms of the GPL and the GPL does not make exceptions. He also says that this is not a case of SCO distributing the code inadvertently:
      Moglen noted that SCO cannot readily make the claim that it inadvertently released the code, because the GPL requires that when code is released under its auspices, the developers must release the binary, the source code and the license, and the source code must be able to build the binary. Presumably, then, the binary functions the way the creators want it to function and has the capabilities they want it to have.
    196. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it is a violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. (GAAP)

    197. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just bragged.

    198. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Errr, no, this is more like someone walking up to you and giving you a $100 bill. You put the money in your pocket. A couple of minutes later the police show up and tell you a bank robber was giving away money. At this point you can do one of two things, you can keep the $100, in which case you are a criminal, or you can give the $100 to the police and face no crime.

      At this point the open source community is trying to give back the $100 bill and SCO is refusing to take it back, insisting that we be dragged off to prison for robbing the bank.

    199. Re:Has anybody considered by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      All that article says is that the "S/360 distribution" of Linux is assigned to the FSF. It mentions nothing about the abundant code IBM placed in the general (x86 et al) Linux tree. I don't know if the copyrights have since been assigned, but all the FSF copyright statements are in the system specific, ppc/m68k/arm areas. IBM has many more, primarily in linux/fs/jfs.

    200. Re:Has anybody considered by ahknight · · Score: 1

      You cannot enjoy the priviledges of a group without taking on it's responsabilities. If someone screwed up in your system, you must all bear that burden... in whatever shape or form.

      Untrue in this case. The laws against violating copyright are very clear on this and always use the term "knowingly" as in "whosoever knowingly reproduces..."

      I nor you knew that the SCO code was copied. Not having been presented with substantial proof of this claim we still don't know. As of this moment, we are not liable. The moment the code is known we have a "reasonable time" to remove the code before being held liable.

      As for the poor soul/company that did the copying, well, I'll light a few candles, eh?

    201. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It would not surprise me at all that the code in question IS LINUX code and not the other way around.

      Remember that Unix/linux integration project they once had. I'll bet some Linux code found its way into SCO's Unix and now they have gone and found identical code. What a surprise.

      If that'sa the case can we do a class action suite to put SCO out of its misery?

    202. Re:Has anybody considered by shaitand · · Score: 1

      The only reason for doing this is "cooking the numbers". Cooking the numbers so your stockholders see what you want them to instead of reality, is in my book unethical. There is only one reason for switching from fifo to lifo or vice versa, to make your inventory appear more or less valuable... in order for it to be accurate, one consistant system must be used. Accounting is SUPPOSED to be a system for accurately monitoring transactions, funds and accurately calculating tax due on those funds (and inventory).

      The minute you start manipulating those numbers in any way, shape or form, you have stepped over the line and are no longer accurately tracking or measurin anything. Now your just doing what all corporations do... cooking the numbers for the quanterly so the stock goes up.

    203. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The latest version of the BSD license does not require inclusion of the original copyright notice/credits. The people who owned the original BSD code "backported" the new license to all of the old code that was under the original BSD license. This is why you might not see copyright notices for all BSD code (and why it can be mixed with GPL code).

    204. Re:Has anybody considered by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1
      wc `find drivers` | grep total>>count.txt
      wc `find fs` | grep total>>count.txt
      wc `find include` | grep total>>count.txt
      wc `find init` | grep total>>count.txt
      wc `find ipc` | grep total>>count.txt
      wc `find kernel` | grep total>>count.txt
      wc `find lib` | grep total>>count.txt
      wc `find mm` | grep total>>count.txt
      wc `find net` | grep total>>count.txt
      wc `find scripts` | grep total>>count.txt
      > cat count.txt
      2536224 8901774 75504253 total
      318544 1344003 10463709 total
      539341 2073426 17956222 total
      1643 5032 38571 total
      3289 9680 74527 total
      14262 44543 349883 total
      8456 36302 259818 total
      15428 51466 387165 total
      233962 700480 5920826 total
      12201 45061 320402 total

      What's wrong with pushd /usr/src/linux; find . -name *.[ch] -exec cat {} \; | wc -l? Oh, and the answer in case you're interested is that Linux 2.4.20 is 4.25 million lines of code. The 80 lines which have allegedly been shown are an infinitesimally small proportion of that.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    205. Re:Has anybody considered by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1
      I'm sure that many suits will be dismissed

      Oh I do hope so!

      ... oh, you meant legal suits? Well, those too, of course...

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    206. Re:Has anybody considered by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 1

      It still does.

    207. Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There seems to be a possibility that the 80 lines in question may have been copied -from- Linux back into UNIX.

      Uncle Ron

    208. Re:Has anybody considered by mec · · Score: 1

      Compiling to a known-published binary is the only way to verify.

      This sounds like a digital update to the old "stick it in an envelope and mail it to yourself" idea.

      This is why the Copyright Office offers the service of copyright registration. The owner of the copyright sends a copy of the work to the US Copyright Office with an application and a $30 fee. At a later date, the copyright owner can get back a certified copy, where the Copyright Office certifies "this registrant filed these bytes on this date".

      Obtaining Access to and Copies of Copyright Office Records and Deposits

    209. Re:Has anybody considered by Oryx3 · · Score: 1

      It's not up to the Linux community to do anything. SCO is making the allegations, let them provide the evidence. These "analysts" are not even programmers. They have no idea of how source code control works. Therefore their viewpoint is completely worthless.

    210. Re:Has anybody considered by toganet · · Score: 1
      Whether or not SCO wins, this will be a wakeup call. Before accepting GNU tools for use in the business, managers are now going to be asking, "how can we be certain that this code is legit?" It is a very valid question.

      But how does the manager know that his company's internally-developed applications weren't just cut-and-pasted together by his developers? Without seeing the source, and actually comparing it to every relevant code snippet ever published or released under any license, how can we tell that any piece of software is not, at least in part, a derivative work?

      SCO has opened more than a can of worms here -- it's more like a tube of Pandora's extra-whitening toothpaste. These allegations could lead to code scrutiny for the entire industry -- not just open-source developers -- and a desire for some sort of guarantee that the software products are built with "compliant code". How will SCO's latest product fare under that kind of investigation?

      It's not hard to imagine a time where CIOs or CEOs are required to 'sign off' on their source code of their products, as the CEOs and CFOs are required to post-Enron.

      And I wonder who would be put in charge of examining all this code? I hope it would not be another Microsoft-in-sheep's-clothing like the BSA.

    211. Re:Has anybody considered by bovinewasteproduct · · Score: 1

      The latest version of the BSD license does not require inclusion of the original copyright notice/credits. The people who owned the original BSD code "backported" the new license to all of the old code that was under the original BSD license. This is why you might not see copyright notices for all BSD code (and why it can be mixed with GPL code).

      Huh???

      NO! The ONLY thing the 3 clause license does not have that the 4 clause does is in the 4 clause license you have to tell people "this software developed at Berkeley". You STILL have to include the copyright notice.

      If they have been taking the source code and filing off the serial numbers again...

      BWP

    212. Re:Has anybody considered by kubrick · · Score: 1

      But how does the manager know that his company's internally-developed applications weren't just cut-and-pasted together by his developers? Without seeing the source, and actually comparing it to every relevant code snippet ever published or released under any license, how can we tell that any piece of software is not, at least in part, a derivative work?

      That was the point I was making in my response; if the company responsible for the product won't indemnify you against their own errors (whether or not their product is based on open or closed source), you need to have a good long look at your own legal liabilities.

      I don't imagine we'd ever see code scrutiny across the industry -- for the same reason we're not all allowed to access any security camera footage we want. It would be interesting if it happened, but I don't think it's a political possibility.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    213. Re:Has anybody considered by pyrrho · · Score: 1

      luckily it's not legal, either. You have to let the end user mitigate damage... you have to ACT like you don't want to be infringed. You have to want your IP back. You can't just use it as a sales technique. They cannot sue linux users... and the moment they demands a royalty it's moot, because while it may suddenly become ok to use the SCO IP, the GPL is no longer valid in that case (mixed with offending code, thou shalt not), and the customers lose the right to the other 100% of linux.

      --

      -pyrrho

    214. Re:Has anybody considered by pyrrho · · Score: 1

      don't forget...

      they did not recall linux they have shipped, and in fact have a letter to their customers saying they may continue to use it.

      under what license? GPL! That's the only option they have!

      --

      -pyrrho

    215. Re:Has anybody considered by pyrrho · · Score: 1

      exactly, once the code is public, the only way to not use it is to know what it is... it's already not a secret, you just have to tell people "this not-secret here, treat it as a secret again".

      It's a play for time, and for Boies maybe a chance to influence law, lose or win, there is a lot of untested water in this case (heck, not only has the GPL not been tested, neither have most EULAs) for him to play with.

      --

      -pyrrho

  3. 80 lines... by jagilbertvt · · Score: 1

    ...of code that SCO copied into UnixWare from Linux?

    1. Re:80 lines... by Neophytus · · Score: 4, Funny

      They prefer to call it an easter egg.

    2. Re: 80 lines... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny


      > They prefer to call it an easter egg.

      No, they prefer to think of it as a lottery ticket.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:80 lines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cringely makes a good case that SCO/Caldera likely cut-and-paste their source into Linux. They were embracing Linux at the time, even unifying Unix and Linux, so it seems quite plausible that a developer did the ol' cut and paste.

      http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit2003060 5. html

    4. Re: 80 lines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's sure starting to look like Syria is queued up for the next liberation.
      They fuckin' deserve it. I say lay waste to every one of those militant asshole countries. If they want to call themselves martyrs, fine, because one thing a martyr can't do is hurt anyone ever again.
  4. An Entire Unix Kernel... by doi · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...in only 80 lines of code? That's pretty efficient.

    --
    A man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's an erection for?
    1. Re: An Entire Unix Kernel... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny


      > ...in only 80 lines of code? That's pretty efficient.

      It's written in perl.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:An Entire Unix Kernel... by bj8rn · · Score: 2, Funny

      #include
      #include ... /* there is 74 more include lines here */

      main(int argc, char** argv) {
      run(); /* yep, this is my only line */
      }

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    3. Re: An Entire Unix Kernel... by xScruffx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then they might have a strong case . . . 80 lines of identical random ASCII would be a real bitch to counterprove.

      xScruffx

    4. Re:An Entire Unix Kernel... by wfberg · · Score: 1

      It's not the entire Kernel.... But this Microsoft-supported litigation by SCO does claim that it took only 80 lines of code to make Linux enterprise-ready ;-)

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    5. Re:An Entire Unix Kernel... by $0.02 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's even more efficient than you think, since those 80 lines include comments.

      --
      If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
    6. Re:An Entire Unix Kernel... by cperciva · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can do better than that...

      #include <kernel.c>

      --
      Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
    7. Re: An Entire Unix Kernel... by pr0nbot · · Score: 1

      Wait... I can split my Perl onto lines?

    8. Re: An Entire Unix Kernel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> ...in only 80 lines of code? That's pretty efficient.

      > It's written in perl.

      More likely APL, IMHO. :-)

      Regards,

    9. Re: An Entire Unix Kernel... by hanzwurst · · Score: 1

      and it's nothing but one gigantic 80-line regular expression.

    10. Re: An Entire Unix Kernel... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's written in perl.

      Then Linux is really scewed. No two perl programmers would write the same code to solve the same problem.

    11. Re: An Entire Unix Kernel... by Bob+McCown · · Score: 1
      nothing but one gigantic 80-line regular expression.

      I see you've been looking at the source code at my last job...

    12. Re:An Entire Unix Kernel... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
      in only 80 lines of code?

      According to find, grep and wc, a Mandrake 2.4.21-pre kernel (not including the Documentation/ tree) comes to 4.37 million non-blank lines. According to The SCO Group's lawyers, two thousandths of a percent of the Linux kernel was contributed by them. Gee, that was worthwhile. And considerably less than their own website claims.

      Of course, they didn't nominate the file containing the 80 lines, it might well be net/tcp_ecn.h or better yet lines 3-24 of math-emu/single.h (-:

      --
      Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    13. Re: An Entire Unix Kernel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could do it in one line of C....one *very* long line.

    14. Re: An Entire Unix Kernel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then Linux is really scewed. No two perl programmers would write the same code to solve the same problem.

      And Linux programmers do?

    15. Re:An Entire Unix Kernel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enterprise features (according to earlier SCO claims) in 80 lines! I wonder about programmer productivity these days...

    16. Re: An Entire Unix Kernel... by pyrrho · · Score: 1

      what are the extra 79 lines for?

      --

      -pyrrho

  5. FUD! by j0nkatz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Linux supporters, however, were quick to question the meaning of the evidence. âoeCan SCO prove that this code came from SCO to Linux, and not from Linux to SCO?â asked Jon âoeMaddogâ Hall, executive director of Linux International (Nashua, N.H.), a Linux advocacy organization. âoeOr did the code that's in SCO Unix come from a third source? Show me the facts,â he said.

    Not only have they NOT proved to the Linux community that the egg came before the chicken, but they have not even proved what "egg" this is. Is it IBM specific code? Is it the actual kernel??

    FUD FUD FUD

    --
    Don't mod me, bro'!!!!
    1. Re:FUD! by sebi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From the article:
      "One could argue that developers could write exact or very similar code, but the developers' comments in the code are basically your DNA, or fingerprints, for a particular piece of source code"

      Find out who wrote it, ask who it was written for, and that should be the end of any doubt. But these are things that will happen in an eventual court case. SCO has definitely strengthened it's standing in the public eye. If their claims are any more valid, or actually simple deception remains to be seen.

      --
      Hank! White!
    2. Re:FUD! by SkArcher · · Score: 1

      Also to be considered: could the code in question have been ported from UNIX to Linux by one of SCO's own coders, during the period when SCO were still OK with Linux they had a big program of 'integrating' the code of Linux and UNIX to heighten the need for SCO servers.

      --

      An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of /.
    3. Re:FUD! by Timesprout · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They dont actually have to prove anything to the Linux community. They just have to convince a judge that the similarities in question do indeed represent a breach of contract for which IBM are liable.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    4. Re:FUD! by DaBj · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't forget to consider the fact that "UNIX" is full of BSD code (remember the BSD lawsuit), and linux has a lot (well some) BSD code in it as well, more or less modified. How do we know it wasn't this code they showed?

      --
      "GNU's not Unix....it's Linux" / Kami "kokamomi" Petersen
    5. Re:FUD! by SkArcher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff - SCO has to show exactly hwere this code came from, who wrote it, when, why, and who for. Only if they can prove that lot AND can prove that there was no way it could of got into the Linux code except by the agency of IBM can IBM be found guilty.

      Of course, all this requires an unbiased court with no FUD pushing from M$^H^H outside parties.

      I'm still of the opinion that the most likely breach for this code to have come from would be SCO's own Linux/UNIX integration projects from a few years back.

      --

      An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of /.
    6. Re:FUD! by SkArcher · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, that is certainly a possibility - mind you, one would expect that the 'Independent analysts would have checked that - my point was that there is a route by which SCO themselves (through the agency of one of their programmers) could have added this code to the Linux source, for their own reasons.

      If this turns out to be true, then SCO don't have a leg to stand on.

      --

      An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of /.
    7. Re:FUD! by DaBj · · Score: 1

      Somehow I think that if the "independent analysts" had checked that it wasn't BSD code they would have said something about it.
      "And in case you are wondering, no, it isn't old legacy BSD code that most *nixes have in common"
      (Not saying the absence of such a comment is proof of anything).

      You do have a point, although proof either way might be hard to obtain. (which necissarily isn't a good thing for IBM in this trial, remember it's law, not logic).

      --
      "GNU's not Unix....it's Linux" / Kami "kokamomi" Petersen
    8. Re:FUD! by doi · · Score: 1

      SCO = Sue Companies Omnivorously

      --
      A man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's an erection for?
    9. Re:FUD! by surprise_audit · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Find out who wrote it, ask who it was written for

      Now there's a good point - maybe those blocks were written by the same people...

      If one (or more) of the early Unix developers later went on to contribute to the Linux kernel, any code they wrote may well have similar comments, due to being for similar functions.

      There's one hell of a lot of stuff in the kernel, developed by numerous people - is it beyond the bounds of possibility that some early Unix developer took an interest in Linux and maybe contributed code within his special area of interest?

    10. Re:FUD! by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      Don't forget that the "independant analysts" - the Aberdeen Group - is the same company that was paid by Intel to report that AMD's performance ratings were bogus. Also the same company who reported that MS Windows was more secure than Open Source, Linux and Mac OSX - oh, and Microsoft is a customer of the Aberdeen Group...

      Do you see a trend developing?

    11. Re:FUD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to Eric Raymond (http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html)

      "SCO/Caldera's complaint is factually defective in that it implies claims about SCO/Caldera's business and technical capabilities that are untrue. It is, indeed, very cleverly crafted to deceive a reader without intimate knowledge of the technology and history of Unix; it gives false impressions by both the suppression of relevant facts, the ambiguous suggestion of falsehoods, and in a few instances by outright lying."

      and:

      "We further suggest that SCO/Caldera's complaint is knowingly deceptive to a degree that recommends sanctions under the Utah and Federal Rule 11 of Civil Procedure."

    12. Re:FUD! by DaBj · · Score: 1

      Do you see a trend developing?

      Yes, rampant paranoia in the ./ crowd. =)

      Seriously, if Microsoft doesn't have the power/ability to make a secure/robust OS, what makes you think they have the ability to pull of this complex Machiavellian stunt? =)

      --
      "GNU's not Unix....it's Linux" / Kami "kokamomi" Petersen
    13. Re: FUD! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Seriously, if Microsoft doesn't have the power/ability to make a secure/robust OS, what makes you think they have the ability to pull of this complex Machiavellian stunt? =)

      Because history shows that they're crappy at producting software and superb at pulling off Machiavellian stunts.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    14. Re:FUD! by DragonMagic · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily.

      In a civil suit, it's the side who's most correct to the judge who wins. SCO doesn't need to prove where the source came from, nor do they need to prove who wrote it, but rather that it appears earlier in their own software or perhaps through a connection with IBM, and then IBM's defense has to be rather weak.

      It's possible that SCO can win in this without having to prove that indeed IBM stole trade secrets. Just nudge the judge enough with techno speak and tons of evidence of SCO code that will be kept under wraps after the trial, and hope that IBM's lawyers can't find earlier versions, figure out who put it there and whether he added it to other software as well, etc...

      I do hope IBM prevails, though, for all of Linux.

      --

      Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
    15. Re:FUD! by the+gnat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      one would expect that the 'Independent analysts would have checked that

      The first independent analyst we heard from was not even a programmer, and she specialized in Microsoft products. I wouldn't expect her to have ever used Linux before, let alone be able to detect the lineage of the code. So far, there's no indication that these people are remotely qualified to determine who, if anyone, is ripping off whom. I'm willing to take their word for it that the code is substantially the same, but given that Linux and BSD source has always been freely available and most of Unix hasn't, the burden of proof remains on SCO.

      These analysts are just a useful source of sound bites, and they're positioning themselves to be the first in line for giving advice to all the pointy-haired bosses who will freak out if this mess goes any further. Do not take anything they say at face value.

    16. Re:FUD! by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What if the kernel changelog shows it was submitted by Sven Hacker in Norway, who never had any contact with IBM?

      SCO might have a case against Sven, but why would they win against IBM?

      I agree with an earlier poster, though. By claiming only 80 lines, it kind of shoots their "Bicycle/Sports Car" analogy in the foot, doesn't it?

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    17. Re:FUD! by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      Microsoft don't need to have the ability to pull off this complex Machiavellian stunt. They've got $40bn in the bank to fund other people to pull it off for them...

      Does anyone really believe it's a total coincidence that Microsoft bought a SCO license so quickly? I don't imagine we'll ever find out, but it would surely be interesting to know what kind of communications went on between Microsoft and SCO immediately prior to that license being bought. In particular, did SCO announce the need for licensing, and Microsoft rolled over and paid up without argument? Or did Microsoft maybe propose this course of action to SCO, then used the license to bankroll them?

      Remember, even if you are paranoid, there might still be people out to get you - even paranoids have enemies.

    18. Re:FUD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if they can prove ... that there was no way it could of got into the Linux code.

      "Could have" or "could've." Never "could of."

      This is not a grammar flame; this is merely an attempt to help you get taken more seriously.

      Thank you.

    19. Re:FUD! by bergeron76 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the linux community should strike pre-emptively here. If we wait until it hits the court system to see what code in question is, it may be too late. Every reasonable measure should be taken to evaluate the code before it hits the courts and categorize it into:

      a) known-good; (written by linus himself, etc)
      b) presumed-good; (inherited from BSD, or whatnot)
      c) author verified; (the code segment author has stated the code as clean)
      d) undetermined - waiting author confirmation, or unknown origin

      Doing this would serve multiple functions. Among them would be a much smaller bank of code to search through, and potential damage control should we find ourselves in the worse case scenario.

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    20. Re:FUD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charming,

      > the jury doesn't give a shit what you or the linux community think.
      I am sure IBM's lawyers would be very interested in how you came by this information, as would we!

      Anything else you would like to share with us today my little cock-polisher?

    21. Re:FUD! by i_am_nitrogen · · Score: 1

      Wow! This post looks a lot like a grammar post I made just the other day regarding "a" vs. "an" but I didn't write it! Amazing how two different people trying to do the same thing come up with similar ways of doing it, isn't it?

      In a more limited language, like a programming language, I'd say similarities are far more likely.

      --
      A solution to the problem with music today
    22. Re:FUD! by Arker · · Score: 1

      There's tons of reasons for having the same code. Your suggestion of the same developers having worked on both projects at different times is one of the minor ones. BOTH Linux and SCO share code with BSD (which contains plenty of AT&T UNIX code that's perfectly legal to use under the BSD license, so that's all legit) and also, as long as we're talking about comments, tons of comments in all *nix codebases are going to be word-for-word from POSIX anyway.

      So it doesn't surprise anyone with a clue that there are code and comments in common between the two codebases, and it doesn't prove anything. SCO is trying to put on this show for the media pretending this means something but it doesn't. For them to prove any wrong doing they need a lot more than 80 lines that match, they need to be able to prove that those 80 lines are actually evidence of illegal behaviour.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    23. Re:FUD! by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 1

      If one (or more) of the early Unix developers later went on to contribute to the Linux kernel, any code they wrote may well have similar comments, due to being for similar functions.

      Or that an IBM coder who worked on Project Monterrey with SCO later went on to contribute code to the Linux kernel.

      Depending on the exact contract terms between IBM and SCO, and the nature of the work, this could easily be a legitimate misunderstanding about contract terms that SCO is blowing up into a stock-pumping scheme. I wouldn't think IBM's well-paid legal eagles would let the company get stuck in a potentially vague contract, and it seems Big Blue does have strict contribution and source-tracking rules, but I'm willing to bet that one programmer trying to reuse his/her own work is the cause of all this trouble.

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    24. Re:FUD! by z_gringo · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why I modded that as interesting.. This reply should nullify my error....

      --
      -- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
  6. Sarcasm mode on by RighteousFunby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My god! What an awful lot of code that is!!!! That 80 lines took five minutes of developers precious time! It's theft! Treason, even! Hang them! Hang them all!

    Seriously, if it's 80 lines out of many thousands that they're worried about, they must be either crazy, or have a major inferiority complex...

    Oh wait! They're BOTH!

    --
    If you're happy and you know it read my blog
    1. Re:Sarcasm mode on by Sayten241 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps 80 lines is not a lot of code, but I bet that program wouldn't work without them. Those could have been the most difficult 80 lines to figures out. If that is the case, and SCO turns out to be right now this one, 80 lines could be a very large problem for IBM and Linux.

    2. Re:Sarcasm mode on by dfeist · · Score: 1

      No. A fair judge can't give that much about 80 lines. Not much mor than "hey give them $1000 and replace it!"
      Whatever they found, it can't be that much that the linux kernel would depend on it and it can't be rewritten in a few hours by those hundreds of coders. After all, as has been stated, there aren't that many large chungs of IBM code in the general kernel (apart from S/390 stuff which is most probably not from SCO)

      --
      Unix makes easy tasks hard and hard tasks possible. Windows makes easy tasks easy and hard tasks $29.95.
    3. Re:Sarcasm mode on by Fishstick · · Score: 2, Funny

      wow, that's what -- $12.5 million per line, right? (1,000,000,000 / 80)

      Must be some damn nice code/comments!!!

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    4. Re:Sarcasm mode on by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1

      It could be a very big problem for IBM, it would be a diff/merge for Linux.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    5. Re:Sarcasm mode on by Selanit · · Score: 1
      . . . 80 lines could be a very large problem for IBM and Linux.


      For IBM, possibly.

      For Linux, I doubt it. 80 lines is not a lot. It can be replaced easily. Presumably, there is a lot more than just 80 lines, and they haven't revealed it all yet. Nevertheless, the instant the suspect code becomes public knowledge, it is certain to be ripped out of the kernel and replaced with completely new code. I suspect that the code will be replaced even if SCO loses the case -- this sort of thing is an assault on the fundamental values of the open source community, and I cannot imagine them leaving any code in place with even a shadow of illegitimacy.

      There would be no point in SCO suing individual kernel developers -- they're private individuals. They don't have the kind of money SCO would be interested in getting. The only reason I can see for suing individuals would be to bolster more important suits against corporations, eg IBM, Red Hat, etc.

      So, 1) there's basically no motive for SCO to sue individual kernel developers; 2) any suspect code is certain to be replaced rapidly as soon as it is revealed. At the end of the day, I suspect Linux-the-project will be rather more wary of intellectual property issues than before, but otherwise unchanged.
    6. Re:Sarcasm mode on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I guess, you didn't read the article. It didn't say they showed all the code, but the some examples. Of those examples, up to 80 lines were the same. The way this is written implies there are more parts.

      "Claybrook and another analyst who had been given an opportunity to see examples of the alleged theft said the blocks of Unix and Linux were strikingly similar. The two blocks of software, they said, contained as many as 80 lines of identical code, along with identical developers' comments. "

    7. Re:Sarcasm mode on by danheskett · · Score: 1

      The point is though if that 80 lines implemented something that is patentend, the implementation is not what is so critical, but rather, the infringement of the patent or violation of trade secret.

      You can have 80,000 lines of code, or 80, or 8, or 1. The quantity is virtually irrelevant. If I designed a language that would all me to break a certain patent in only 1 line of code, it wouldn't matter to a judge that it was only 1 line out of millions.

    8. Re:Sarcasm mode on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      80 lines took five minutes of developers precious time

      You must be a far better programmer then I am.
      Programming for me means I often endup reading through the whole thing againg and making it a lot better then the first time.
      80 lines of skillfull code is worth a bit more then 80 lines of
      cout<<1;
      cout<<2;
      cout<<3;
      But for arguments sake lets asume it actually took 5 minutes. Are you saying it's ok to steal if it's just small stuff ?

      The real question is who actually wrote the code?
    9. Re:Sarcasm mode on by aborchers · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      That 80 lines took five minutes of developers precious time!


      I acknowledge your humor, and agree in your assessment of SCO, but:

      80 lines in 5 minutes? I can only assume you are not a software engineer...

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    10. Re:Sarcasm mode on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the hell modded this flamebait?

      Then again, who modded the parent informative? The parent is pure ignorance.

    11. Re:Sarcasm mode on by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      Acccording to Novell, SCO doesn't have the patents, just the copyrights.

    12. Re:Sarcasm mode on by janda · · Score: 1

      IANAL, of course.

      There is a thing known as "independent invention" that says that if you create something, patent it, and I create it on my own (not being aware of your device, patent, etc), then I am *NOT* violating your patent.

      You could probably sue me to stop me from continuing to use the item or something, but you can't sue me for patent infringement if I developed it on my own.

      In regards to the comments being the same, good coding practices say that your comments should tell what something is doing, not how. This means that for any given function foo() that exists in both kernels, there is a fairly decent chance that the header comments ("This function accepts an IP address and performs a reverse DNS lookup to find the fully-qualified server name.") will be very similar, if not identical.

      If somebody has seen the function someplace else (textbook, BSD, HURD, BeOS, you name it), the odds of them using the same comment increases just from the way memory works.

      In any event, until SCO actually decides to identify the code (either by showing the code, or saying "kernel version 2.foo.bar, file xyzzyc, lines 18 to 300" or something nobody will be able to say for sure, and any comments made until then are just smoke and mirrors to keep the case in the press.

      OBSCO: Trade secret law requires you to take reasonable steps to protect your secret. One of these reasonable steps is requiring you to take immediate action if you find your trade secret has been violated. Given that SCO kept their Linux distribution on their FTP server for weeks (and weeks) after they started this fiasco, I (personally) would think they have given up trade secret protections for those parts of the code.

      --
      Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
    13. Re:Sarcasm mode on by ctve · · Score: 1
      Any programming problem that can be solved by one programmer of worth can be solved by another of worth.

      If what SCO had done had been revolutionary, they would have patented it.

      Even if it's an infringement, it isn't worth the claim SCO are making. If I was on a jury I'd offer $100,000 to the plaintiff max.

  7. Why should I be worried? by gilesjuk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless SCO are coming to my house to format my hard disk and install SCO Unix.

    Seriously though, I doubt I'm even using their stupid code, plus my distro of choice isn't commercial.

    1. Re:Why should I be worried? by njchick · · Score: 1

      This lawsuit may discourage other companies to contribute to Linux. Next videocard or network card may not have Linux drivers when you decide to upgrade because the hardware manufacturer didn't write the driver, being afraid of lawsuits from the companies it had licensed code from (no matter how unrelated to the driver). The community will write a driver for your device eventually, but it can happen when it's time for you to upgrade again.

    2. Re:Why should I be worried? by mce · · Score: 1

      Seriously though, I doubt I'm even using their stupid code, plus my distro of choice isn't commercial.

      The fact that your distro is not comercial is uttely irrelevant. The offending source code more than likely is sitting in Linus' kernel, of which you are using a (compiled) copy. The fact that you did not pay for it does not change the fact that - assuming that SCO is right, obviously - either you or the originator of your distro should have paid for it.

      Whether you use it on your particular machine also is irreleavnt. What matters is that it's there, sitting on your disk, "waiting to be used" without the "proper" royalties having been paid.

      --
      Linux user since early January 1992.
    3. Re:Why should I be worried? by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      So I will remove the offending code, recompile the kernel and not be using it. I doubt I'm using this code already.

      This code could be removed from the kernel easily, but if they do this SCO will say they're trying to cover their tracks.

    4. Re:Why should I be worried? by mce · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you remove it, you're fine. But that holds for all distributions.

      I do not think SCO will claim that you or anybody else is covering someone's tracks. If there really is illegal code in there, SCO already has and can trace enough kernel copies to not depend on the code having been removed. Contrary to polular /. belief, they're not entirely stupid and know that too. They do want to maximise media attention, the amount damages they claim to have suffered, and any future royalties, though. That's why the offending code has to stay in there and THAT is why they don't reveal their so-called evidence.

      --
      Linux user since early January 1992.
    5. Re:Why should I be worried? by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      I can remove the code and all is well, that's why I'm saying I have no need to worry.

      Sure SCO are doing it for publicity, but it's bad publicity.

  8. Mac OSX based on Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The article also claims that Mac OSX is just as vulnerable to attacks as any other Linux based system."

    Get your facts straight first, Mac OSX is based on BSD - not Linux!

    1. Re:Mac OSX based on Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      assuming the original lines may have come from BSD, I wouldn't be surpised if it is as vulnerable.

    2. Re:Mac OSX based on Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well, that tells it all - we're talking here
      about code that came from BSD.

      Otherwise, why should both Mac OS X as well
      as Linux have it ?

    3. Re:Mac OSX based on Linux? by DaBj · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFA, the both of you =)

      That quote is from the "Linux more insecure than Windows, Aberdeen claims" article (second link in the main post) and has nothing to do with the SCO-IBM lawsuit as such.

      --
      "GNU's not Unix....it's Linux" / Kami "kokamomi" Petersen
    4. Re:Mac OSX based on Linux? by Durindana · · Score: 1

      Is this in the EETimes article? I didn't see it there.

      (You're correct, of course, I just couldn't find your quote in the story)

    5. Re:Mac OSX based on Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong article dude...

    6. Re:Mac OSX based on Linux? by ProfKyne · · Score: 1

      Get your facts straight first, Mac OSX is based on BSD - not Linux!

      That doesn't matter. What if SCO was leveraging their claims against BSD instead of Linux? The precedent behind all of this is the same regardless.

      --
      "First you gotta do the truffle shuffle."
    7. Re:Mac OSX based on Linux? by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      Err... duh. The main point of the article is that Aberdeen group is dumb. (The tone is sarcastic humor, like in many articles at the Register)

    8. Re:Mac OSX based on Linux? by Lew+Payne · · Score: 0, Troll

      Get your basic comprehension skills straight, geek boy...


      "The article also claims that Mac OSX is just as vulnerable to attacks as any other Linux based system."


      They didn't say it was based on Linux, you mental midget. They said it was just as vulnerable to attacks as any other Linux based system. It's in the same league as Linux when it comes to vulnerabilities. Is that so difficult for your programmatic little mind to comprehend?

    9. Re:Mac OSX based on Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whups! Looks like YOU'RE the one who failed comprehension.

      The article also claims that Mac OSX is just as vulnerable to attacks as any other Linux based system.

      Hint: It's the significance of the bold word you're not picking up on. You know, just in case me bolding it didn't already help point that out.

    10. Re:Mac OSX based on Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OTHER

      you stupid twat.

    11. Re:Mac OSX based on Linux? by alexo · · Score: 1
      > Get your facts straight first, Mac OSX is based on BSD - not Linux!

      Starting Score: 0 points
      Moderation +5
      60% Insightful
      20% Informative
      20% Funny
      Insightful???

      This is the final proof that /. is moderated by RNG bots.
  9. Well then by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Funny

    80 Lines out of 10's of thousands. Thats it, looks like IBM are fucked

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:Well then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah.

      Linux 2.4 has more than 3 million lines of code.
      Linux 2.5 is closer to 5 million lines of code.

      80 lines? I need more decimal points in my calculator to see what that represents. But one can expect it's just an example. As one can expect is the best example (to cause more impact on whoever is looking at it). This will be an interesting court battle, I'm just sad it will drag for a long time.

    2. Re:Well then by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      As of 2.5, 5 million lines, actually.

  10. Use SCO's Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Got bandwidth? Want to use some of it rather than let it go to waste? Mad at SCO? Want to learn more about their products and/or hear them talk? Last time they pulled the file when slashdot wanted to know how to administrate their Linux server. This time...

    Download a 36.6mb ZIP from the SCO Authorized Eduaction Partner program from here

    (for all you non-English speakers)
    a 12.9mb Italian OpenLinux manual pdf from here

    a 10mb Unixware administration pdf from here

    a 7.9mb mp3 of a Caldera confrence call (May 2002) from here

    a 4.2mb mp3 of a SCO confrence call from here

    a 4.5mb vector image of the Caldera logo from here

    OR

    a 6.8mb SCO education Linux courseware pdf from here

    a 128mb iso evaluation of the SCOoffice 'Volution' product from here

    ***If you want to get these interesting files easier, you can also launch an unspecified number of wget processes. You can even -O /dev/null them if you don't want to use disk space, but still want to download them...

    36.6mb: (removing the space in 'zip')
    wget sco.com/images/pdf/education/SCO_AEP_posterfiles.z ip

    12.9mb:
    wget sco.com/images/pdf/edesktop/edesktop_24_it.pdf

    10mb:
    wget sco.com/images/pdf/aep/UW7NET~1.PDF

    7.9mb:
    wget sco.com/images/pdf/06032002.mp3

    4.2mb:
    wget sco.com/images/pdf/q2.mp3

    5.4mb:
    wget http://www.sco.de/images/pdf/12-11-01.mp3

    9mb:
    wget sco.com/images/pdf/aep/OS5NET~1.PDF

    4mb:
    wget sco.de/images/pdf/unixware/946000000b.pdf

    And, if you need their entire website for offline viewing... not wanting to waste bandwidth downloading things multiple times:
    wget -r -l0 http://www.sco.com/

    1. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe from about 300 KB/s the download speed slowly decreased to about 35 KB/s... and still falling. Good work!

    2. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by CodeMaster · · Score: 5, Funny
      Or for the quick leaching of 366Mb unattendently:
      #!/bin/bash

      for i in `seq 1 10`;
      do
      wget sco.com/images/pdf/education/SCO_AEP_posterfiles.z ip -O /dev/null &
      done

      Save as fsco.sh (or whatever...),
      chmod a+x fsco.sh
      and run
      ./fsco.sh
      .
      Kick back, and enjoy
    3. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't this called a DoS attack? ...Ok, I'm new here.

    4. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by Dasaan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      nah, it's just a typical slashdotting ;)

      --
      XP is basicly 98 with a lot more extra features to hunt down and disable. --Dram
    5. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DDoS (the first D for distributed) attack might describe this better. But otherwise yeah, this could be counted as such.

    6. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between right and wrong. This is just plain wrong. Too bad you don't see it.

    7. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is DDoS is counted if you connect several times to a server you can't be treated for just connecting once at a server and downloading all the time.
      So if you run one wget process and pipe the output to /dev/null and run this wget process 100 or more times you cannot be treated for DDoS cause YOU only connect to this server once for a download.

    8. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by Kashif+Shaikh · · Score: 1

      Hey thanks,

      We learn something new everyday: "seq". And here I was creating a bash for loop from 1 to 256 manually!(Which is one of the reasons I converted to Perl)

      Kashif

    9. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it can be treated as a DDoS, because it comprises an attempt to consume system resources for a purpose other than what they are provided for.

      Repeated sequential download of a large file without any intent to disseminate or store it is certainly excessive consumption of computer resources for other than the use approved by their host resulting in possible denial of approved use
      (ie: A DoS attack).

    10. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by despistao · · Score: 1

      I can still download at 300KB/s

    11. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems SCO has removed the 350mb manual from their website. Wget does support ftp though and they have quite a bit on their ftp sites you might want to grab and have a look through.

      I used:
      (add -O /dev/null if you are merely stress testing your internet connection for throughput and don't care to save the files)

      wget -r -l0 ftp://ftp.sco.com

      You can also grab all of their skunkware packaged stuff (GPL'd utilities) with the command below. We all know it is the Skunkware packaged applications which actually makes their shitty operating systems OpenServer 5 and UnixWare 7 to be useable.

      wget -r -l0 ftp://ftp2.sco.com

    12. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, no kidding. Doesn't appear to be in the man page.

    13. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by Lew+Payne · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You're a stupid and childish little shit-head. I am always amazed at the crap-heads that infest this and other forums.

      Why don't you try doing something positive, for a change. Just because you don't like the fact that a company is making use of the legal process to protect its intellectual rights doesn't mean you need to encourage others to cause damage.

      What about legitimate people who want to make use of their products? It's idiots like you, who haven't a clue as to the ramifications or repercussions of their stupid actions, that cause others needless grief and suffering.

      Grow up, you stupid imbecile.

    14. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by pla · · Score: 1

      Why don't you try doing something positive, for a change.

      Some people do consider such actions as "positive". Community action for a specific cause, namely, hurting SCO where it matters (the pocketbook, for cost of bandwidth), and screw what the "law" says. In case you haven't looked around lately, "they" write the laws - All the SCOs and Disneys and the RIAAs and Enrons and Haliburtons and Martha Stewarts. But whether they like it or not, real live actual humans still live on this planet. Not slave labor, and not just a consumer pool.


      What about legitimate people who want to make use of their products?

      Banks and other large corporations who chose to support the Nazis during WWII suffered greatly from having to make various post-war reparations for their involvement.

      Some of us, who truly believe in freedom of ideas, see SCO's tactics as nothing short of a morally unsupportable "first strike" on free software, with Linux merely the scapegoat they would lock up in concentration camps to the detriment of us all.

      We've already had countless minor skirmishes with the **AA, which they generally win in the courts, but WE win in the real-world. A few "legal" POWs to the US court system, and we all have Metallica's entire catalog on our HDDs, despite not even liking them, just to make a point.

      Make no mistake, a war will come (Senator Kelly... Sorry, couldn't resist, the tone of my text just got way too heavy G), as companies try to hang on to outdated ideas and practices. Not a war with bullets and bombs (though I have little doubt that some extremists on both sides will resort (and have already done so) to violence), but a war that most people will never hear about beyond "and SCO's web site went down for a few hours today as...".


      Pick a side.

    15. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm ripping the entire site so that I can do my own research on SCO and their product range, perhaps this will help me/us identify the specific code in the linux kenel. I advise everyone to do the same. If SCO had a problem with this, they would remove their entire site and stop spouting off to the press would they not?

    16. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/OpenLinux311/Server/SRPMS/te TeX-1.0.7-15.src.rpm

      50.9MB

    17. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by ctve · · Score: 1
      'Making use of the legal process'?

      What, trying to beat up the whole open source community on behalf of their new masters by a campaign of FUD? You think that's morally OK do you?

      If SCO had come forward on day 1, approached IBM and said "Look, there's these 80 lines of code that are ours, pay up motherfuckers or we'll sue" in a closed meeting with IBM, and it had any justification, that IBM would gladly have handed over a few thousand dollars and settled out of court. Having this shit damage them in a law suit wouldn't be worth it.

      That is the honest and reasonable way to proceed.

      However, SCO have not behaved honestly or reasonably, and so deserve the wrath of everyone who holds liberty sacred. If SCO prevail, open source will suffer, and Microsoft will strengthen.

      Just don't come crying when you have even less choice than you have now.

      BTW What would you suggest as 'doing something positive' about SCO?

    18. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by draziw · · Score: 1

      Sure it does - just not the bash man page. the backtick mean run what is in the ticks. so the `seq...` means run seq, and feed that output here.

      man seq: "seq - print a sequence of numbers".

      Cool though.

    19. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The site sco.com is running Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1 on Linux

    20. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by stor · · Score: 1

      You ought to have a look at the Advanced Bash Scripting Guide

      Enjoy.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    21. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by stor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OK I think you're just joking and sorry to be a party pooper but resorting to dirty stuff like that doesn't seem like such a great idea.

      We'll be best off coming out of this ordeal with the perception of being law-abiding adults rather than petty, angry rebels.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    22. Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by uniplex · · Score: 1

      If the files aren't quite large enough to get an accurate stress test try using 'while true'

      example:

      while true; do wget -O /dev/null http://www.sco.com/$PATH$TO$SOMELARGEASSFILE; done

  11. 80 contiguous lines? by jagilbertvt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The question I have is whether this is 80 lines of contiguous code, or if it's a line here and there. If it's just here and there, then it's quite easy for them to find matches, heck I bet it'd be pretty easy to find some comments that match too.

    1. Re:80 contiguous lines? by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1
      No, no, no, it's a letter here, a letter there...

      And the identical comment seems to be:

      /* Never reached code */

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    2. Re: 80 contiguous lines? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny


      > The question I have is whether this is 80 lines of contiguous code, or if it's a line here and there. If it's just here and there, then it's quite easy for them to find matches, heck I bet it'd be pretty easy to find some comments that match too.

      You mean like -

      /* from 4.3BSD */
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:80 contiguous lines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other possible comments include:

      /* NOTREACHED */
      /* NORETURN */
      /* ARGSnUSED */
      /* INDENT-OFF */
      .
      .
      .

    4. Re:80 contiguous lines? by Lew+Payne · · Score: 1

      You're right... there would be a lot of comments from both sources that have the word "SCO" and "Santa Cruz Operations" in them.

      Why didn't I think of that?

      Better yet, perhaps you should tip off the defendants, and they can argue that in court. Maybe you'll win a booby prize. After all, you're quite a gifted thinker.

    5. Re:80 contiguous lines? by hexium · · Score: 1

      I once did a project where I wrote some vb-scripts to access AVI files from a CD. I was constantly distracted by Norton Antivirus which was convinced that my PC had contracted the ILOVEYOU virus.

    6. Re: 80 contiguous lines? by bovinewasteproduct · · Score: 1

      You mean like - /* from 4.3BSD */

      You had better hope it is NOT from 4.3BSD and is from 4.4BSD-Lite2.

      4.4BSD-Lite2 is the ONLY BSD that was covered under the consent agreement... That is why FreeBSD had to be damn near re-written between 1.X and 2.0.

      BWP

  12. bicycle to car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, even assuming 80 lines of code got copied, how does this turn Linux (allegedly a bicycle) to a modern car?

    1. Re:bicycle to car by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1

      They're the magic 80 lines that were fabled by my CS Professor. If you recite them backwards, we'll all end up slashdotting on TRS-80's.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
  13. How do you put the worms back in the can? by rdewald · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that the 80 lines were lifted and it is deemed improper. I think we have a long way to go before that is established as fact, but if it is.....

    How in the world do you get us, /.'ers, to buy a license for code we ourselves modify? Just last week I had to fix some code in my kernel because the new gcc wouldn't compile it. Apparently there was a patch for it, but I had just turned off my broadband (not worth the $$$) and I needed to compile ppp into the code to get my modem to work. So, it was fix the code or wait for a CD to show up in the mail. I'm going to pay for this?

    --
    The best way to do is to be.
    1. Re: How do you put the worms back in the can? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Ok, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that the 80 lines were lifted and it is deemed improper. I think we have a long way to go before that is established as fact, but if it is.....

      ...how many hours will it take the kernel hackers to replace 80 lines of code?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:How do you put the worms back in the can? by Lew+Payne · · Score: 1

      How do you get "us" to buy a license? Well, I would not expect a software thief to purchase a license. Especially not when he can justify, in his own mind, excuses for not doing so... "I modified the code, I shouldn't have to obtain a license for the base code that I started with!"

      Why bother licensing any music, either? After all, you "modified" it into a new format (MP3). You shouldn't have to pay for that, should you?

  14. Not that I am being defensive here but by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    Considering Linux is open source, how do we know they just did not download the kernel source or what ever system softwere this is supposed to be from and select some code to claim they wrote? I mean if I were totaly desperate and would do anything to survie in SCOs position it seems awful easy to get a copy of linux open up one of the many .c files and claim it was mine.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:Not that I am being defensive here but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. How do they reliably demonstrate the history of their code? The Linux source has been publicly published so it's history can be verified.

    2. Re:Not that I am being defensive here but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Linux was the Operating System equivalent to a Bicycle and SCO's OS was the Operating System equivalent to a Ferrari,

      Clearly SCO wouldn't want to copy code from the bicycle, yet Linux would certainly want the Ferrari's code!

      SCO just needs a few good insinuations, after all, 'the Linux kernel people are just a bunch of dirty hackers', where 'The Unix people are ultra-31337'.
      &c. &c.

      After all, UNIX has never pirated code from the free distributions (Ha ha), but Linux is one of the new players and has yet to prove itself.

  15. Sheesh. by vadim_t · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even if those 80 lines were really copied from Linux, it's not a big deal. Any decent programmer can write 80 lines in less than an hour. Even if those 80 lines do something unusually cool and hard to come up with, I'm still sure that there's no way that just 80 lines of code can give Linux any significant advantage. Fix a bug, or get a driver to work? Maybe. Give Linux the quality SCO claims it wouldn't have if IBM hadn't copied the code from them? No way.

    1. Re:Sheesh. by Grax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any decent developer maybe. The great ones take the same amount of time to write 3 lines of code that does the same thing.

      --
      Coding Blog
    2. Re:Sheesh. by POds · · Score: 1

      We'll according to SCO theres a lot more then just 80 lines. This is just a tast. A major argument for SCO is that, not just the source was identical, but the comments too.

      There a far more was to describe a peice of codes functionality in english, then there is to write it an programing language. For that reason, its likely that the code originated from the same source.

      What source was that? We'll, thats a good question. SCO is going to have to prove that it did infact come from Unix System V software originaly, and not from linux to SCO or from a 3rd party.

      What i would love to know though is, if this effects BSD. I know people have asked this question before, but they dont seem to mention it in the articles, and SCOs claim seems targeted towards Linux souly.

      BSD has already gone through this stuff before. Infact, if it wasnt for the AT&T stuff, BSD may never have become a full Operating System.

      I wonder if SCO is just intentialy throwing an AT&T. Kinda like a copycat style legal case! :) We'll, i guess this is just Linux next step to being Unix like. It has to be involved in at least one court case before its really considered to be like Unix :).

      --


      Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
    3. Re:Sheesh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They claim that code is at the heart of Linux...
      What if a judge will belive them.... What if we may not remove that lines at that point ? ...

    4. Re:Sheesh. by abiogenesis · · Score: 1

      Your typo ("from Linux" instead of "from SCO code") makes one wonder if SCO did copy some code from Linux?

      --

      Donate free food to the hungry at The Hunger site.
    5. Re:Sheesh. by wkjel · · Score: 1

      "Infact, if it wasnt for the AT&T stuff, BSD may never have become a full Operating System."

      You should go re-read your UNIX history books. In the early years of UNIX development ATT gave source code licences to universities including UC Berkeley. BSD is derived more-or-less from that original source, much modified by generations of students and professors. One could argue that ATT UNIX might "never have become a full Operating System" without the contributions of the Berkeley community: virtual memory management and TCP/IP, just to mention two.

      As for SCO's attack affecting BSD, the issue has already been settled by the courts in BSD's favour in a suit brought by ATT against Berkeley. This has been noted in many posts over the last week.

    6. Re:Sheesh. by Lew+Payne · · Score: 0, Troll

      You're a short-sighted idiot, too. Boy, I am certainly finding my share of mindless fools in this particular story.

      It's not about any decent programmer writing 80 lines of code -- that won't cure the damage already done by distributing proprietary code. You will also be hard pressed to have a programmer replace those lines of code, under a "clean-room" environment. Don't know what that means, as it pertains to intellectual property, geek boy? Better find out.

    7. Re:Sheesh. by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      What damage? Please give me an example of 80 lines of code that could cause the damage SCO claims they did. 80 lines changed Linux into a "luxury car" from a "bycicle"? Nonsense.

    8. Re:Sheesh. by mec · · Score: 1

      You will also be hard pressed to have a programmer replace those lines of code, under a "clean-room" environment.

      Exhibit C of SCO's complaint against IBM is a side letter to the contract between AT&T and IBM. Section 9 of that side letter specifically allows IBM to use methods and concepts from Unix code in their own products and services without operating in a clean-room environment.

      So replacing any offending lines would be easy for IBM.

      http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit

      Just hit Exhibit C from there and read it yourself.

  16. What a name by Timesprout · · Score: 3, Funny

    Jon âoeMaddogâ Hall, executive director of Linux International (Nashua, N.H.), a Linux advocacy organization. âoeOr did the code that's in SCO Unix come from a third source? Show me the facts,â he said.

    Quick show him the facts before he starts chasing parked cars

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  17. David Boises loosing streak by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Funny

    Many observers believe SCO's case is bolstered by the fact that it is represented by high-powered attorney David Boies, who prosecuted the Microsoft antitrust case and represented Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election vote-counting scandal.

    He also represented Napster. So far that's 0-3 loses (well, I guess he won the court battle with MS, but that didn't amount to a hill of beans).

    If David Boies takes the case, it means you'll probably lose.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:David Boises loosing streak by JeffSh · · Score: 1

      Atleast we'll get to see Ziggy Stardust on the court floor, arguing about code. that will be pretty neat.

  18. Lawyer by FTL · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Many observers believe SCO's case is bolstered by the fact that it is represented by high-powered attorney David Boies, who prosecuted the Microsoft antitrust case and represented Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election vote-counting scandal.

    Wait a minute. Didn't the Microsoft case collapse? And didn't Al Gore loose his case? So why is SCO's case being "bolstered" by using David Boies. Isn't Mr. Boies just a loser?

    (Nothing personal against David, just looking at the quoted record.)

    --
    Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
    1. Re:Lawyer by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Didn't the Microsoft case collapse? And didn't Al Gore loose his case?

      If you look at the part of the Microsoft case that Boies was involved in, Boies clearly won. Microsoft was found to be a monopoly, and have acted illegally. The judge in the case went so far as to recommend that Microsoft be broken up. Even more telling he clearly embarrassed Microsoft's attorneys a number of times during the trial. Of course, the settlement turned out to be far less than a breakup, but that was more due to the DofJ caving during negotiations with MS than anything Boies did. And that finding of MS being a monopoly is going to affect MS for a long time in a variety of ways in other litigation.

      In the case of Al Gore's electiion challenge, Boies did lose. While I am not at all a fan of Dubya I think that in retrospect it was a reasonable outcome to a very difficult situation. Certainly post-mortem investigations showed that Bush probably did actually win the plurality of votes in Florida. Of course the fact that justice seems to have been served is purely accidental, and should be a warning that election processes are not robust enough in these close races.

      To me the disappointing result was the Napster result. I would have thought that things like the Betamax case would have provided a good base to win this one. I do not at all agree with the idea that a particular technology should be blamed for the way it is used.

      The other area of criticism of Boies that bears some scrutiny is that he was unethical during the Gore matter. This to me is the most severe issue of all. Of ourse I am sure SCO doesn't care about this.

      The choice of lawyer for SCO may well have come down to the fact that they need someone to handle a very high profile technology/IP case on a contingency basis. It may have boiled down to Boies being the best available.

    2. Re:Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Didn't the Microsoft case collapse?

      Depends on how you define collapse, since David Boies won. I agree the sentancing phase was a joke, but he still won the case. Microsoft was found guity and is still considered guity.

    3. Re:Lawyer by jenkin+sear · · Score: 2, Informative

      Boies was (IIRC) the leader of the successful antitrust prosecution against IBM, back in the eighties- this was the first big high-tech antitrust case, and was clearly pretty successful.

      --
      What a strange bird is the pelican, his beak can hold more than his belly can.
    4. Re:Lawyer by isdnip · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Digression... actually, post-mortem recounts of the entire state show that Gore would have won had the entire state been recounted, as the Bush side had once suggested. Had the recount only occurred in areas where Gore suggested it was necessary, Bush would have ended up ahead. But even that leaves out the impact of the butterfly ballot, of the roadblock keeping African-American voters away from the polls on the panhandle, and from the thousands of eligible African-American voters stricken from the rolls under a contract to ChoicePoint, while at-the-poll appeals were primarily made available to Cubans.

      Just trying to fight a defective meme before it spreads.

    5. Re:Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a minute. Didn't the Microsoft case collapse? And didn't Al Gore loose his case? So why is SCO's case being "bolstered" by using David Boies. Isn't Mr. Boies just a loser?

      Naw.. he's pretty good. Those two cases were decided by politics, not by lawyer prowress.

      OTOH.. If IIRC the "60 minutes" profile on him, Mr. Boise is dyslexic, and subsides almost entirely on ice cream.

      Which is weird enough..

    6. Re:Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the point was that Boies is Microsoft's lawyer -- in which case he isn't a loser at all.

    7. Re:Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      roadblock keeping African-American voters away from the polls on the panhandle

      Show one reputable source that reported this. There isn't one. This was just FUD spread based on a single (untrue)statement the Jesse Jackson made.

    8. Re:Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: "If we make it a complicated enough issue, and include enough liberal hotbutton issues, our candidate Algore may be the one who climbs out of the mudpit as the winner."

    9. Re:Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I do not at all agree with the idea that a particular technology should be blamed for the way it is used.

      It's the use of certain technologies to reach a certain goal by Napster that has been ruled illegal. One can still provide non infringing file search services with the technology used by Napster

    10. Re:Lawyer by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      To me the disappointing result was the Napster result. I would have thought that things like the Betamax case would have provided a good base to win this one. I do not at all agree with the idea that a particular technology should be blamed for the way it is used.

      No, Napster deserved exactly what it got. The defense that it's not necessarily a copyright infringement tool didn't hold much water because the company execs were so obviously interested in it for exactly this purpose. Music piracy was what was driving the tremendous growth in the user base, and they never had any intention of using it as an alternate distribution method for legal music. This is very well documented, and it's disturbing to see people continue to try to defend the company.

      This was always much different from the DeCSS case, where developers were being sued for the tool itself, not just the use, or from the Betamax case. In the latter, the product hadn't truly caught on yet at the time of the lawsuit, and it was a preemptive strike at a threatening technology (which the movie studios eventually adopted and made a great deal of money from). Napster had already proven its utility for piracy and very little else. (Additionally, Sony won because much of what the MPAA wanted to stop was ruled to be fair use, unlike what Napster was mostly used for.)

    11. Re:Lawyer by sig+cop · · Score: 0

      Translation: "When I lash out at 'liberals', I post as an Anonymous Coward because I have no balls, spine, nor, noodles."

    12. Re:Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Napster attempted to obtain licenses from the record companies and developed a system for secure distribution of music that paid copyright holders, much like what Apple is doing now. Napster and the record companies were having secret meetings before and during the court cases. The next-generation Napster, that you could sign up to beta test from their website was the culmination of those secret meetings. It had everything the record companies asked for to securely distribute music online.

    13. Re:Lawyer by David+McBride · · Score: 1
      [This is somewhat offtopic]

      Certainly post-mortem investigations showed that Bush probably did actually win the plurality of votes in Florida.


      You *really* think so? this might change your mind.
    14. Re:Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So threating illegal activity is an OK negotiation tactic? When the Teamsters try that, they get charged under the RICO Act.

    15. Re:Lawyer by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      actually, post-mortem recounts of the entire state show that Gore would have won had the entire state been recounted

      I don't think that is correct. The most creditable study I have seen is the NORC report which shows that a statewide recount under then operating Florida law would have resulted in Bush still winning.

      That doesn't take into account stuff like butterfly ballot problems, claims of other irregularities, etc. that may have given the election to Gore if things had been different. Those are factors that didn't turn into countable votes and thus would not have shown up in a recount.

    16. Re:Lawyer by isn't+my+name · · Score: 1

      The choice of lawyer for SCO may well have come down to the fact that they need someone to handle a very high profile technology/IP case on a contingency basis. It may have boiled down to Boies being the best available.

      The fact that Boies used to work for IBM's law firm may have something to do with it as well.

    17. Re:Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the most ironic part of the Napster debacle was, that while the record companies were claiming they were losing millions and billions of dollars to piracy, they were having their most profitable year on record. It wasn't until Napster was shutdown that their profitability went into a tailspin. At best that's counterintuitive.

    18. Re:Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The choice of lawyer for SCO may well have come down to the fact that they need someone to handle a very high profile technology/IP case on a contingency basis. It may have boiled down to Boies being the best available.

      I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm missing something. Maybe Boies has some grand scheme that I can't see, but if I were SCO's lawyer, I bind and gag McBride, toss him in the back room and beat him with a cluestick. Even time that guy opens his mouth, he says something stupid that hurts his case. I hope Boies is at least smart enough to get paid in advance.

    19. Re:Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >If you look at the part of the Microsoft case that Boies was involved in, Boies clearly won. Microsoft was found to be a monopoly

      Yeah. He won the "No Shit Sherlock" prize for proving the painfully obvious.

    20. Re:Lawyer by jslag · · Score: 1

      Certainly post-mortem investigations showed that Bush probably did actually win the plurality of votes in Florida.

      They certainly did not show that. Check the archives of the Sydney Morning Herald, or one of the other non-US papers that reported the actual results of the full recounts.

      Consider also the disenfranchisement of thousands of black voters, who overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

    21. Re:Lawyer by kst · · Score: 1

      Certainly post-mortem investigations showed that Bush probably did actually win the plurality of votes in Florida.

      No, they didn't. The headlines and the first few paragraphs of the news articles about the investigations certainly implied that, but if you read down a few paragraphs, you'll find that Gore would most likely have won if all the valid votes had been counted in accordance with Florida election law. If everyone who was legally entitled to vote had actually been allowed to do so, Gore's margin would have been even larger.

      Yes, this is off-topic and redundant; moderate away.

    22. Re:Lawyer by nursedave · · Score: 1
      Most definately. Just because some dufus puts up a website saying otherwise, or fat-ass moron Michael Moore puts out a book/movie saying otherwise, don't make it so.

      Face it. Bush won. Narrowly, embarrassingly (for the country, not just for Repubs), but he won. The ballot in question was approved by the Democrats, the largest number of ballots 'thrown out' came from military voters overseas, who vote more Repub than Dem...... Geez, dude, it just goes on and on.

      --

      The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!

    23. Re:Lawyer by nursedave · · Score: 1

      You don't even know what the word 'disenfranchisement' means. What, that they didn't get their bread and circuses?

      --

      The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!

    24. Re:Lawyer by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The headlines and the first few paragraphs of the news articles about the investigations certainly implied that...

      I would certainly like to see an actual link that states this. As far as I can determine the NORC report (which is the most thorough post-mortem investigation I have seen) clearly states that Bush would have won under Florida election law in place at the time of the election in either a selective recount in Democratic precincts OR in a statewide recount.

      NORC makes comments about ballot design errors and so on that probably cost Gore the election, and what would have happened under different counting scenarios, etc., and I will buy the idea that more Floridians intended to vote for Gore than Bush, and maybe a recount process that included a change in Florida law to include overvotes would have happened, but that's a different argument.

    25. Re:Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that Boies used to work for IBM's law firm may have something to do with it as well.
      IAAL, Actually it makes it conflict of interest and a reason to have him thrown off the case and investigated by the Bar Association. I am sure IBM's lawyers will bring this up in due course.
    26. Re:Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush lost the popular vote and lost the vote in Florida during the recount. Any decent man would have graciously bowed to the will of the people and not weasled their way into power in a technicality.

    27. Re:Lawyer by Gutar · · Score: 1

      I thought there were rules about attorneys taking cases where there were former cases that could generate conflicts of interest? MS is now a big owner of SCO, and therefore has a serious vested interest. Wouldn't that interest affect Mr. Boies' involvement in the case?

    28. Re:Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, but on parallell earth, Bush won.

  19. 80 Lines of code = less revenue? by edgrale · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So let me get this... 80 lines of code is what made Linux so popular? And the same 80 lines of code caused SCO profits to drop from about $200M/year to about $60M/year??

    Gimme a break, no one is going to believe that. As soon as they know what code is "dirty", if it even is, it is going to be removed.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:80 Lines of code = less revenue? by marcushnk · · Score: 1

      Don't forget.. this is the 80 line that they were willing to show.. aparently there is more..

      --
      "Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
    2. Re:80 Lines of code = less revenue? by MrWa · · Score: 1
      Gimme a break, no one is going to believe that. As soon as they know what code is "dirty", if it even is, it is going to be removed.

      Who is the "no one" that you speak of? You? Those reading ./ ? The same people that said Microsoft would be punished for being a monopolist and abusing that power? The same people that, just days ago, said there was no code? But now that there may be code it doesn't matter anyways?

      If SCO can show that IBM improperly moved code in to Linux, I think a judge would be apt to believe that IBM did not act properly. Does this hurt Linux? Probably - atleast from a credibility stance and migration into corporations. Even with the code removed there is still the chance that some other company will lay claim to code - who has time to go through all that source. Is a corporation just going to accept that the same hackers which wrote Linux are going to make sure the code is clean?

      This opens the door to a lot of questions...

    3. Re:80 Lines of code = less revenue? by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Remember that these 80 lines of code are beyond the ability of Linux hackers to write too. Doh.

      How can anyone give a shit of 80 lines including comments? For all we know it could be something SCO or IBM added to Linux to make it more compatible with SCO Unix. A slight interface tweak somewhere. If so, and they don't want the code in Linux, then tell us where and it'll be fixed. Shit, it'd take 8000 lines of code before I'd start being sympathetic to this claim. 80 lines is a large chunk? Pathetic dickheads!

      That also makes me wonder what third parties hold copies of SCO's source code and are able to validate when those lines were added to their source code. Without some proof of when they were added to SCO you can't really compare things fairly and will have no idea who stole from who. Even if some retard wrote 'this was stolen from SCO' in the Linux comments there'd be doubt as to if SCO put that there themselves or not. Whereas Linux is subject to public CVS (or whatever they use now) which probably includes records of who checked out/in code and when they did it. It may be that given the evidence of what code is duplicated that the Linux folks can say exactly who added it and when.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    4. Re:80 Lines of code = less revenue? by eric76 · · Score: 1

      There is also the question of mitigating damages.

      It seems to me that SCO is attempting to maximize damages. I don't know if it applies to copyright law, but in many points of law, my understanding is that it is up to the injured party to try to mitigate damages. If they don't, the damages are frequently set to what they should have been had they mitigated damages.

      For example, if someone throws a baseball through your window, you can't sue them a year later and collect for all the rain damage that has occurred since then because you refused to break the window.

      And there is the question of when SCO learned of the alleged infringement. They have been quoted as saying that there wasn't anyone to sue before now. It sounds to me like they failed to mitigate damages while waiting for there to be someone big enough to sue.

    5. Re:80 Lines of code = less revenue? by Lew+Payne · · Score: 1

      That's not at issue here, mental midget. What is at issue is the theft and misuse of intellectual property. One thing SCO will ask for is disgorgement of profits, along with treble damages. I suggest you learn what those terms mean, and how the courts have applied them lately in other intellectual property cases, before typing more of those thoughts you pawn off as intellectual fodder.

    6. Re:80 Lines of code = less revenue? by mark-t · · Score: 1
      It seems to me that SCO is attempting to maximize damages. I don't know if it applies to copyright law, but in many points of law, my understanding is that it is up to the injured party to try to mitigate damages. If they don't, the damages are frequently set to what they should have been had they mitigated damages.
      Bullseye!

      Also interesting is the fact that SCO is placing terms on this code that are blatantly incompatible with the GPL, so if SCO really owns it, then the code *HAS* to be removed. No if's, and's, or but's.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    7. Re:80 Lines of code = less revenue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let me get this... 80 lines of code is what made Linux so popular? And the same 80 lines of code caused SCO profits to drop from about $200M/year to about $60M/year??

      Gimme a break, no one is going to believe that. As soon as they know what code is "dirty", if it even is, it is going to be removed.

      Since you seem to have trouble parsing the situation, let me help you out....

      Linux isn't popular because of 80 lines of code. Linux is popular for basicly 4 reasons.
      1. Its become capable enough over time to take on tasks formerly performed by commercial *nix.
      2. Its cheap.
      3. The source is available.
      4. Its an underdog with a great story.

      Linux has been replacing SCO for *nix on Intel use as advocated by may here on Slashdot. Why is that? Because of the reasons above. It's also important to note that if Linux wasn't capable of doing the job, nobody would be using it to replace SCO. As a result of that, and various other factors, SCO's revenue has fallen by $140,000,000/year, and Linux companies now have revenue. (Drop in the bucket, right?)

      So, how did Linux become so capable? Well, its clearly a combination of factors. It started with a good model and borrowed ideas. It had the GNU utilities to wrap around the kernel. There were also many talented and dedicated individuals who donated time and the use of their equipment. But, that only gets you so far.

      Along the way there were various companies who donated resources which benefited Linux, like Sun paying for the NFSV4 port, and IBM donating JFS, and SGI XFS. So, Linux certainly benefited from the charity of large OS companies to mature and grow.

      Ahhhh, but now we come to the rub. Was all of the code that came from those companies legitimate? What if, in his or her open source zeal, or simply laziness, a developer at one of those companies saw a hole in Linux, and decided to fill it? With code that was "borrowed?" (After all, when you're slaving away for 60 hours a week for the man, and Linux is a little behind the plan for world domination and the destruction of Microsoft, who has time to either rewrite all the code, or even come up with new code? Developers do deserve beer time just like anyone else, right? Nobody will notice, and besides, it makes Linux even greater!!! 'cause that code does something that r0XzOrz!!) Now, just to add a little spice to the stew, what if the code came from a failed partnership between two companies (IBM, SCO) to develop the next generation of Unix(R), in which one company was left holding the bag (SCO) when the other one bolted for its new heart-throb, Linux? Note - the partnership failed, not the development. Now, IBM has certainly thrown its weight behind Linux for more than one reason. Could it be that the code sharing was winked at?

      So, now Linux gets a cut of code from a mature Unix implementation which helps to make it more capable. The more capable Linux goes on to further undermine SCO's market position. And, to add insult to injury, Linux is using SCO's own code against it.

      Now, this matter could effect Linux on more than one level. If there really is purloined code in Linux, someone is likely to end up paying royalies. Second, a lot of kernel rework may need to be done to work around the code. We'll skip the subject of economic damages and restitution.

      If IBM and Linux companies have to pay royalites, Linux may not be so cheap. Costs for Linux companies will also likely rise since they will want more oversight over the Linux codebase, therefore incurring more costs.

      I've lost count of the number of companies in the Linux market that have folded after the dot.com bubble. If there is much substance to this case, it is likely that there will be more. It may not take too many more before a consensus develops in the business community that Linux (or maybe free software in general) may be good for business, but its not a good business. Start-up money and loans could

    8. Re:80 Lines of code = less revenue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really eh? And if this 80 lines of code made Linux better, how come SCO's *nix still suck?

    9. Re:80 Lines of code = less revenue? by mec · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it applies to copyright law, but in many points of law, my understanding is that it is up to the injured party to try to mitigate damages.

      Dale Kimball is the judge assigned to SCO versus IBM.

      Judge Kimball ruled on a copyright infringement case in January 2001:

      Judge dismisses lawsuit against author, publisher

      Judge Kimball dismissed the case because the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages.

      (Disclosure: I am short SCOX).

    10. Re:80 Lines of code = less revenue? by eric76 · · Score: 1

      That's very interesting.

      I think that it has more to do with SCO claims against Linux than against IBM since the claims against IBM are on contract issues, not copyright issues.

      Considering the IBM culture and the way that IBM reportedly required their Linux developers to meet with lawyers to discuss the legal issues involved before doing any Linux work at all, the claim that IBM misappropriated their code strains my credulity far past the breaking point. To me, that seems to be about the least likely scenario of all possible scenarios.

      Anyway, in the lawsuit you referenced, the judge's dismissed the lawsuit because the plaintiff, Gene Jacobsen, waited for three books to be published before raising issues of copyright infringement when he had every opportunity to object at the first book.

      SCO had every opportunity to objecting to the alleged infringement a long time ago. Instead of objecting to the alleged infringement, they let it continue.

      Gene Jacobsen says he didn't even read the first book until later and so he couldn't have complained about the infringement. SCO claims they hadn't compared the code until now and so they couldn't have complained. The parallels between the two cases are really strong.

      SCO really should have done their due dilligence in a timely manner. They had every reason to do so and every opportunity to do just that. That they didn't is their fault and not that of the Linux community.

      The fact that they waited until now to make the claims strikes me as being very suspicious.

      And that's assuming that there really is an infringement, which I doubt.

  20. How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by phre4k · · Score: 3, Informative

    I made a small perl script to count the lines of c code in the linux source (as shipped by redhat)

    #!/usr/bin/perl
    use File::Find;

    find(\&wanted, ".");

    sub wanted {
    next unless /\.c$/;
    open C, $_;
    while () {$c++; }
    }

    print "$c\n";


    There are about 3 million lines of code in the linux source. 80 lines are 0,003%. For SCO's sake i hope they have more evidence than these 80 lines - and that they can prove that the didn't rip them off them selves - either from linux or BSD.

    /Esben

    --
    "Nobody really checks their email any more. They just delete their spam"
    1. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about simply
      wc *.c ??

    2. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by samhalliday · · Score: 1
      there is also a more sophisticated program for doing this kind of thing which may attract your attention: SLOCCOUNT

      Download it here

    3. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really are a Lunix user, aren't you? Instead of writing some perl shit, try:

      man wc

      You'll be surprised what they thought up in the 70's.

    4. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by El+Cubano · · Score: 1

      There are about 3 million lines of code in the linux source. 80 lines are 0,003%. For SCO's sake i hope they have more evidence than these 80 lines - and that they can prove that the didn't rip them off them selves - either from linux or BSD.

      So, $1B (the amount SCO is suing for) divided by 0.003% = $3.333x10^13. That means that the Linux kernel is worth more than $33 trillion. Quick, everyone let's lock up the source code in Fort Knox before SCO goes for the rest.

    5. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      how about simply wc *.c ??

      Actually, his program did something more like:

      find -name \*.c | xargs wc

    6. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by cdc179 · · Score: 1

      Where are you getting 3 million lines from?

      [cdc->/home/cdc]$ find /usr/src/linux/ -name '*.c' | wc -c
      191985
      [cdc->/home/cdc]$ find /usr/src/linux/ -name '*.h' | wc -c
      275676
      [cdc->/home/cdc]$ find /usr/src/linux/ -name '*.S' | wc -c
      21688

      This shows there to be under 500000 lines includeing headers.

    7. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by Tack · · Score: 1
      You ought to look into xargs, and man wc. All your commands did was count the number of characters in the file names themselves.

      Jason.

    8. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by cdc179 · · Score: 1

      my bad, there are over 3 million lines. #!/bin/sh count=0 for line in `find /usr/src/linux/ -name '*.c' -exec wc -l {} \; | awk '{printf $1 "\n"}'` do let count=$count+$line done echo $count

    9. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robbing lunix from the world community and locking it up in Fort Knox... Before you know it half the world walks around in marches supporting SCO!

      (hmm, somewehere the analogy goes haywire. oh, drat)

    10. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by Tack · · Score: 1
      This is how I'd do it (also counts header files and asm):

      [tack@draco linux]$ find -name '*.[chS]' | xargs wc -l | grep total | perl -nae '$sum += $F[0]; END { print $sum }'
      4651160

      Unix needs a tool that takes numbers via stdin (one per line) and outputs the total to stdout. I'd call it summate(1). Does anyone know of one? You could then use that to replace that ugly perl line. :)

      Jason.

    11. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by BJH · · Score: 1

      find -name "*.[ch]" | xargs wc -l

    12. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty funny that I had almost written the same code as you with find, wc -l and awk, but I couldn't figure out how to total the lines. I was trying to use TOTAL=$TOTAL+$1 but it wasn't working.

      There are 3486841 lines in my 2.4.20 Gentoo-patched kernel source. Also, here's the shell script with newlines.

      #!/bin/sh
      count=0
      for line in `find /usr/src/linux/ -name '*.c' -exec wc -l {} \; | awk '{printf $1 "\n"}'`
      do
      let count=$count+$line
      done

    13. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      You're counting wrong. What that gives you is the number of *characters* in all the filenames that find finds. To count lines the argument to wc should be -l, and the input to wc should be the actual source code, not file names.

    14. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the method I tried at first but couldn't figure out how to use xargs. This was posted by another AC on Slashdot.

      find . -name \*.c -print | xargs cat | wc -l

    15. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by cdc179 · · Score: 1

      Just goes to show that scripting or programming there will be very simular code. Shove that up your A?S SC$! That is if they didn't steal the code from BSD.

    16. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      It's a bit more complicated than that, since wc reports per-file info and thus dumps a lot of garbage to the screen besides the total. Also, xargs can't create enough arguments for every source file in Linux (12495 files), so you can't just use "xargs wc" either. For completeness, we should add header files too, which yields the following for 2.5.69:

      % find . | grep -E "*\.[ch]$" | xargs cat | wc -l
      5037077

      That's a lot of code. 80 lines, or even the hundreds they claim, is insignificant to Linux.

    17. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by cdc179 · · Score: 1

      xargs is good and faster than using exec, but if you want to have script compatability you need to use: [cdc->/home/cdc]$ find /usr/src/linux/ -name '*.[hcS]' -exec cat {} \; | wc -l Other UNIXs won't like the xargs.

    18. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
      Unix needs a tool that takes numbers via stdin (one per line) and outputs the total to stdout.

      gawk '{ t=t+$1; } END { print t }'

      gawk '{ t=t+$1; } END { print t/$NR }' if you want average (mean) instead

      --
      Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    19. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by jak163 · · Score: 1

      I think they may also have given it away themselves, even if they weren't aware of it at the time, by distributing their own version of Linux under GPL.

    20. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by Tack · · Score: 1
      Sure, one could use awk or perl to count lines in files, too. One could use awk or perl to recursively search for a glob. One could use awk or perl to summate a series of numbers. (And you'll notice my original post has perl code that is virtually identical to your awk code.) But The Unix Way is to have small tools that do a single thing well.

      You could make your own summate script (and I have, since I find I often need that sort of tool), but it's not portable unless it's in (text|core)utils. Something like that should be, IMO.

      Jason.

    21. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by Lew+Payne · · Score: 1

      80 lines is more than is needed to establish the claim, which then entitles SCO to disgorgement of profits and treble damages.

      I can see the plaintiffs speaking now, "But your honor... we only copied .001% of the code... we should not be found guilty of copying their code!" followed by, "... and plaintiff, tell me... does that .001% that you copied belong to SCO?" ... followed by, "Uhhh... uhhh... yea, but the folks on slashdot don't really care about that...."

    22. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by Error27 · · Score: 1

      Your code ignores all the .h files. I've heard that 2.5 is upto 5 million lines these days.

    23. Re:How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by phre4k · · Score: 1

      did that. It has no option for summarizing all the lines in an dir.

      /Esben

      --
      "Nobody really checks their email any more. They just delete their spam"
  21. SCO owns the Unix copyright afterall by doe · · Score: 1, Informative

    It seems that Novell now admits that it has transfered the Unix copyright to SCO according to this article.

    They still claim to own the patents so the SCO case appears to be solely about the Unix copyrights.

    1. Re:SCO owns the Unix copyright afterall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, SCO says that Novell transferred "some" copyrights. Novell says that the signature looks authentic but they cannot find this particular document in their files.

      There is a huge difference between that and saying that they transferred the copyrights.

  22. But where is the code? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    If the 80 lines that are the same are a part of some module that really isn't required, that's one thing, but if it's required to boot the system, that's a whole other problem! What a horrible thing to happen to such a great free enterprise.

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:But where is the code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linus or Cox would throw the code out and write a variant before you could blink your eyes. Linux isn't threatened by this. Only IBM is.

    2. Re:But where is the code? by Narcissus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think that even the biggest Linux-basher would agree that the Linux OS was in a bootable state before IBM starting submitting code for it.

      I would assume, then, that this 80 lines of code is not required for a system boot (unless it pertains to some bizarre IBM setup, in which case the code would have no doubt originated from IBM, and possibly submitted to both the Linux kernel and the SCO Unix kernel independently).

  23. Are the 80 lines contiguous ... ? by Ninja+Programmer · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they are not, then I will be highly unimpressed if there are for identical /*'s and 40 identical */'s in the code.

    1. Re:Are the 80 lines contiguous ... ? by ArmorFiend · · Score: 5, Funny
      BREAKING NEWS: CUSTOMER LEAKS THE 80 LINES OF 'COPIED' CODE

      At last, the copied code is revealed. Here it is!:

      /*
      GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
      Version 2, June 1991

      Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
      59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
      Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
      of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

      Preamble

      The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
      freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
      License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
      software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
      General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
      Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
      using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
      the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
      your programs, too.

      When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
      price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
      have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
      this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
      if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
      in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

      To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
      anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
      These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
      distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

      For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
      gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
      you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
      source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
      rights.

      We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
      (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
      distribute and/or modify the software.

      Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
      that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
      software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
      want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
      that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
      authors' reputations.

      Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
      patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
      program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
      program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
      patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

      The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
      modification follow.
      ...
    2. Re:Are the 80 lines contiguous ... ? by daveisoverlord · · Score: 1

      This is 100% off topic - but I read your journal - which I thought was cool, but nobody can respond since you have comments disabled. I can't give you my thoughts without the comments turned on. I don't know how to do it myself because I don't journal but it looks like you need to go to the edit preferences of the journal tab and turn them on. I also think you'd need to write another entry to get comments enabled.

      --
      The perception of reality is more important than reality itself.
  24. Where's the truth? by Scalli0n · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If SCO was really out to be honest, they'd show us the code. I, myself, want to see these 80 lines of code, because it could be anything! I also want to see where it came from; I want to be able to go to my /src/ directory and see the same 80 lines of code as they tell me were plaigarised

    --
    Sig & Below
    Yuck Fou
    1. Re:Where's the truth? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      SCO knows that if they show the code, it will be rewritten by the end of the week, and the case would become moot (practically, although not legally). It would be like Microsoft re-engineering Windows during the DOJ case. The law is so slow, SCO would be dead, and this code would be in some ancient version noone uses.

  25. 80 lines Come on by Unleashd · · Score: 5, Informative

    A couple of years ago SCO worked with the linux community on trying to bring together Unix and Linux ... who is to say that their own programmers didn't insert this code durring that process?!?!

    --
    We don't need no stinking sig!
    1. Re:80 lines Come on by pngwen · · Score: 1

      perhaps they did as a sort of "insurance policy."

      They insert 80 lines from unix, then linux starts to hurt them. They then bring up the bomb that they planted.

      Look at what they did prior to this. They tried to get the copyright and patents to unix from novell. They were about to launch their contengency plan and found a hole. They decided to proceed anyway and here we are :-)

      --
      I am the penguin that codes in the night.
    2. Re:80 lines Come on by goatbar · · Score: 1

      It's in the commercial distributions only, right? So we can just go look at when the code appeared on kernel.org in which patch???? Would be so easy to at least find out when the code got in the kernel and then maybe find out who submitted it? Then maybe we'll find out it's a SCO engineer who submitted the code?

    3. Re:80 lines Come on by beldraen · · Score: 1

      They can't bomb this way other than their own case. All it takes is finding out what 80 lines they are referring to and then checking the distros for when they showed up. I suspect it *is* the case that SCO released their own code. If it got out it would clearly show their fubar and this is why they are being so careful about to who they show it. In court you can argue whether or not some fact can be presented, but in the court of public opinion, you cannot.

      --
      Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
  26. Um, yeah by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    If somehow got my hands on a copy of the win2k source code, hacked it, and recompiled I would still need to pay for a license. It's not like you wrote the WHOLE THING. If it's true that there is SCO code in the Linux kernel, then distributing it for free is a violation of their copyright. Once you already have it though, they can't do all that much other bitch, just like MS can't really do all that much about my pirated copy of windows :P

    If the allegations are totally legit, then what will most likely what will happen is Linux hackers will rewrite the bits of code that are copied. If SCO had released the pieces of code that were copied, it probably would have been done already.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  27. Is it possible ? by MrNop · · Score: 1

    Is it possible that these 80 lines are same but not done by same author, nor ripped ?

    I mean, there are probably some parts of code that don't have millions versions possible, and could be coded exactly the same by differents coders.

  28. Wow by greppling · · Score: 5, Funny
    That must be ingenious lines of code. 1 billion / 80 = 12.5 million $ per line of code. Geez!

    Just think, if you write just one such line per day, you could start competing with Bill Gates' annual income.

    1. Re:Wow by dfeist · · Score: 1

      It's more than 80 lines (they only showed 80 lines). At least that's what they say.
      But even with several thousands of lines $1 billion is pretty much. Even a judge really ruling in their favor wouldn't give them mor than a few millions.
      And thn, after all, the code should be "freed" since it should belong to IBM if they pay for it, and they already GPL'd it.

      --
      Unix makes easy tasks hard and hard tasks possible. Windows makes easy tasks easy and hard tasks $29.95.
    2. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's also funny is that this article inspires exactly your response from many different people. It's the same thing with code: the same problem requires the same code, with perhaps even the same comments (great minds think alike; a good hack must be explained to every reader).

    3. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dood, ur sig is fudddkin funny yo wurd homeslice

    4. Re:Wow by dh003i · · Score: 1

      Yep. May have been an area which required an identical solution. So, the only argument SCO has left is infringing on the copyrights of their code-comment, if they can even prove it's their own comments.

      Not to mention they already released everything under the GPL>

      --
      social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
  29. New defense tactic needed by Chilles · · Score: 4, Funny

    We at IBM always laughed about the sillyness of SCO code and comments your honour, honestly, it wasn't theft, it was parody!

  30. Does Linus et al keep track of code submitters by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Do they?

    Is it possible to submit a patch to some backwater part of the kernel that improves upon something rather mundane, the kind of thing that doesn't get your picture on the "Top 10 Kernel Gurus" list and then have the identity of the submitter slowly slip away into the ether?

    Or are the kernel submitters kept in some kind of list someplace along with the stuff they submitted?

    1. Re:Does Linus et al keep track of code submitters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      First, all code is attributed in the changelog.

      Second, Linus most of the time ignores code which does not come from his trusted lieutnants. They, too, do proper attribution.

      Third, most code isn't accepted unless it's obviously correct (like small fixes) or has had some testing on the list first. Which means that the patch can probably be found in LKML.

    2. Re:Does Linus et al keep track of code submitters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ChangeLogs?

      Also anything submitted since Linus started using BitKeeper should be exactly traceable.

    3. Re:Does Linus et al keep track of code submitters by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      well if you look at the changelogs, thats what it looks like, a list of what they did and if nothing else, the emails of who did it.

      --
      Why not fork?
    4. Re:Does Linus et al keep track of code submitters by mce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Second, Linus most of the time ignores code which does not come from his trusted lieutnants. They, too, do proper attribution.

      Unfortunately not always. I once (years ago) submitted a (tiny) patch to Alan Cox. He achnowledged it and merged it into his AC kernels, but when it got into Linus' kernel, the attribution read: Alan. Personally, I don't care at all about that, but it does show that the logs are not 100% reliable.

      --
      Linux user since early January 1992.
    5. Re:Does Linus et al keep track of code submitters by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the kind of thing I was thinking of, where a random contributer gives something to an Alan Cox or other lieutentant of Linus and the patch gets rolled together whith a bunch of other patches into an "AC" patch and then the attribution gets muddled by Linus since he accepts the patch as a single block from Alan, with the assumption that he has written or at least vetted all the bits in it.

      If what you say is true, then there is imperfect record keeping and its certainly is possible to substitute "Alan Cox" in the above paragraph for "IBM" or some other entity liable to submit a largish patch or patches where the submitter isn't necessarily the atomic entity that wrote the code.

      It would also stand to reason that some plebian coder with access to the SCO source could use it as a basis for 'fixes' to the kernel and submit them through some 2nd or 3rd tier person who might submit a patch rollup to Linus who just merges it in under their name.

      It would also stand to reason that the above plebian coder, anonymously submitting code, could actually be acting on a malicious basis, trying to poison the code by submitting non-original work.

      What I don't get is what could have SCO have coded that Linux either did poorly or not at all, and was drop-in compatible with Linux? I would have presumed that the SCO code was architected entirely different and that perhaps there were some *algorithms* superior that those in Linux, actual code that could be copied line-by-line would have been next to impossible.

    6. Re:Does Linus et al keep track of code submitters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aha! It was you! 'Tiny,' hmm? 80 lines or so?

    7. Re:Does Linus et al keep track of code submitters by firewood · · Score: 1
      First, all code is attributed in the changelog.

      Are these attributions digitally signed with the signature key traceable back to a unique individual? Or are these attributions as reliable as the email "From" headers in the daily spam.

  31. Aberdeen Group? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't they find anyone who is unbiased and neutral? And competent?

  32. and by waspleg · · Score: 1

    as we all know forging this "evidence" would be trivial

    1. Re:and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, nobody has acutally seen the proprietary code that was stolen from SCO. They can produce 80 lines of code in an hour or even less and even reproduce the comments (the linux kernel source is open, right?) then integrate everything in their crappy OS.

  33. And now.. read again SCO claims by MrNop · · Score: 5, Interesting

    âoePrior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment.â (Paragraph 84)
    80 LINES of code !

    âoeOver time, IBM made a very substantial financing commitment to improperly put SCO's confidential and proprietary information into Linux, the free operating system.â (Paragraph 94)
    80 LINES of code !

    âoeThe only way that the pathway is an âeight-lane highwayâ(TM) for Linux to achieve the scalability, SMP support, fail-over capabilities and reliability of UNIX is by the improper extraction, use, and dissemination of the proprietary and confidential UNIX Software Code and libraries. Indeed, UNIX was able to achieve its status as the premiere operating system only after decades of hard work, beginning with the finest computer scientists at AT&T Bell Laboratories, plaintiff's predecessor in interest. â (Paragraph 99)
    80 LINES of code !

    1. Re:And now.. read again SCO claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      80 lins of code ... ... including the comments !

    2. Re:And now.. read again SCO claims by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment;

      Such as what? I'm running Gentoo on a Compaq Armada laptop (333MHz, 6Gb, 128Mb) that a friend gave me. I've seen the same Armada going on Ebay for $200 - $300. Stage1 build, by the way, everything compiled from source...

      If that's SCO's idea of expensive design and test equipment...

    3. Re:And now.. read again SCO claims by bobv-pillars-net · · Score: 1
      ... beginning with the finest computer scientists at AT&T Bell Laboratories ...

      who above all, wanted a reliable o/s for their SpaceWar game.

      --
      The Web is like Usenet, but
      the elephants are untrained.
    4. Re:And now.. read again SCO claims by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

      you know, the whole universe may come from "several lines of code", so 80 lines of code are as important as several universes.

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    5. Re:And now.. read again SCO claims by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I know, I know. Preview first.

      #include <smp.c>
      #include <failover.c>
      #include <scalable.c>
      #include <fs_journal.c>
      #include <reliablity.c>
      #include <decades_of_hard_work.c>
      #include <other_miscellanious_sco_ip.c>
      #include <oh_and_some_stuff_from_microsoft.c>

      #define IBM SCO

      /* Drunk. Fix later. */

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    6. Re:And now.. read again SCO claims by ctve · · Score: 1

      A poker dice game I wrote as a kid was more than 80 lines. Anyone want to start the bidding at $500 million?

    7. Re:And now.. read again SCO claims by bucky0 · · Score: 1

      Why are you including .c files? Headers I could understand, but other source files?? :)

      --

      -Bucky
  34. possible comment matches by rollthelosindice · · Score: 1
    # Fix this later

    # Will this even work?

    # I'm fucked if they find this code block

    1. Re:possible comment matches by TCM · · Score: 1

      The Linux kernel is a shell script? :)

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    2. Re:possible comment matches by BJH · · Score: 1
      #!/bin/sh

      for interrupt in irq1 irq2 irq3 irq4 irq5 irq6 irq7 irq8
      do
      handler $interrupt
      done


      Where's my billion dollars?
  35. I'm too stupid... by FosterKanig · · Score: 1

    to figure this all out.
    How long is an average line of code? And can't it be assumed that two people came up with the same solution?

    And to the comments, how specific are they? I know you don't know, but they don't know that you don't know, and you don't know that they don't know that you don't know.
    Anyway, if the comment is "This sends command to the kernal" that seems pretty obvious, but if it is "I, the SCO master demand that you all bow down before me while this sends commands to the kernal" it might pose a problem.
    Which leads us all back to one thing, if you have evidence SHOW IT!!!

  36. Solution to chicken and egg problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Carbon dating!

  37. 8 Analysts have seen the code, 2 commented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to Salt Lake Tribune, 8 Analysts have so far seen SCO's code "proof"

    So far we have hard comments from 2, as far as I know, namely Giga and Aberdeen group consultants

    1. Re:8 Analysts have seen the code, 2 commented by ctve · · Score: 1
      I think in the NDA that SCO can edit the comments.

      So let's say that those other analysts said something like "look, they do look similar, but the answer reached could easily be the same by two different programmers" (one example is something like a sort routine where the method is well known).

      Are SCO going to publish criticism/Non FUD. And are the other 6 analysts independent people rather than Pro-Microsoft whores?

  38. Are these lines of code... by Paddyish · · Score: 1

    consecutive?

  39. May I make a suggestion... by Helpadingoatemybaby · · Score: 1
    Now that we know roughly the length of this "infringement" it should be possible to locate the code segment itself.

    Would someone be so kind as to compare the files and locate a duplicate section of about 80 lines? This way we can begin to locate who added the source. The best defence is a good offence, after all.

    Imagine that we pull out the 80 lines in the next few days (infringement or not) and replace them and send them off to the distros. The case is closed right there.

    Plus, we can publish the lines, show the world that SCO is either lying or donated the code themselves, and shut down this smear campaign before it even starts.

    Shall we?

    --

    The baby's fine -- please stop sending business cards.

    1. Re:May I make a suggestion... by b1t+r0t · · Score: 1
      Would someone be so kind as to compare the files and locate a duplicate section of about 80 lines?

      Fine. Just tell us where we can get a copy of the SCO source code first.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    2. Re:May I make a suggestion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SCO should say what module, .c file and who added and when.
      Then say when they added theirs.

    3. Re:May I make a suggestion... by tkg · · Score: 1

      Kevin Mitnik perhaps?

  40. morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    come on morons, learn the difference between "lose" and "loose" ...

  41. There is an audit trail, you know by b1t+r0t · · Score: 4, Informative
    Every version of the linux kernel and the diffs between it and the previous version is available. If SCO wouldn't be so cagey about the allegedly stolen code, someone could trace down the history of kernel changes and find out exactly when the code first appeared, and who submitted it.

    This isn't like the Cisco/Huawei case, where IOS has been proprietary for years, without an open source equivalent forked out of it in the distant past, and without various companies working with both codebases. In that case, there's nothing to cross-pollinate with, and copied code could clearly go in only one direction.

    And if it's not in the kernel, then it's not in Linux, is it? Linux is the kernel and the kernel alone. Everything else is GNU and other third-party utilities, and distro-specific stuff.

    Of course SCO wants to make it difficult because what they really want is to muscle someone (primarily IBM) into buying them out. If they made it easy for people to investigate, the truth would be found in a week, and their case would vanish. And people would also be working to replace the code in question, just as they did in the days of the BSD/AT&T debacle. I'm surprised they've let anybody see it yet.

    --

    --
    "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
    "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    1. Re:There is an audit trail, you know by Gaetano · · Score: 1

      Who knew that it only takes 80 lines of code to draw a smoking gun?

      This is why I think that if it where possible for people running cvs servers or where ever the central resources for historical code archives are kept should keep an eye out for connections coming from certain analysts companies and see what they appear to be most interested in.

      If this where possible, or reasonable, it could prove telling. I know that if I had signed the NDA and looked at 80 lines of smoking code I would be looking code its source.

    2. Re:There is an audit trail, you know by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 0

      Eighty lines of correct code is about two weeks' output from a senior programmer. An experienced programmer can write about ten lines per day of debugged code and spends about four days a week actually at the keyboard. (I'm told that the original citation is to Brooks' _The Mythical Man Month_, but I've never chased it down. The figures have been replicated a number of times.) In that light, 80 lines is more than a smoking gun, it's a smoking crater...if its provenance can be proved. Two batches of eighty lines each are a disaster...again, provided that their provenance can be proved.

      I'd bet on SCO for that proof, if I were you. So far, we've seen them armed for bear: Novell thought they had SCO, and now look like fools, then OSS types thought the evidence didn't exist, and now we know they were wrong. I'd guess that SCO has affadavits from the original programmers for the code they showed to the analysts.

    3. Re:There is an audit trail, you know by mwfolsom · · Score: 1

      Well we can't see these "80 lines" but IBM certainly can. In fact they should have all the "evidence" in hand.

      What gets me is where are they, meaning IBM, in this whole mess. By now they must have gone through the code base and the alleged "copied code" and have a clue what happened. While I understand that they are advised to be silent by the Lawyers part of me is a bit scared that absolutely nothing has "leaked" about what is going on.

      Our community seems to be viewing this as an either-or situation. Either its all one way or the other. What if some of the "problems" lie with IBM's acts and others with a whole host of other things (inclusion of BSD stuff, goddies donated by SCO itself, actually copied code, and other unspecified reason). This could be a truly nasty knot to tear apart.

      In the mean time Linux is being hurt and the Community can't do a thing about it!

    4. Re:There is an audit trail, you know by Gaetano · · Score: 1

      As someone else has already pointed out there are 3,332,935 lines of code in the linux kernel. So I can guess that you are talking about a crater on the nano scale.

  42. Wasn't a good test by confused+one · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I read the articles (there was more than one written). I read the comments by Aberdeen's rep. She said: Yep, that's the same code alright...

    Where's the analysis in this? 80 lines of code isn't damning. Where did it come from? Did she go back into the distro archives and find where and when it was put into the code? No. Did she check against the BSD codebase? NO. Did she even know what she was looking at? Probably not.

    1. Re:Wasn't a good test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even a child can compare text. It's FUD allright; Aberdeens 'expertise' has nothing to do with this.

    2. Re:Wasn't a good test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Where's the analysis in this? 80 lines of code isn't damning. Where did it come from? Did she go back into the distro archives and find where and when it was put into the code? No. Did she check against the BSD codebase? NO. Did she even know what she was looking at? Probably not.

      Did she even look at Linux to see if the code was in there?

      Did she try compiling the code and comparing it to SCO's Unix.

    3. Re:Wasn't a good test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if she saw the code, she most likely had to sign SCO's NDA. She can probably only say "yay" or "nay" if it is in fact the same.

      Which does nothing to solve the "chicken or the egg" question (where did it first appear), or even if the "complete with the same comments" simply means 2 people typed /* 1 + 1 = 2 */ at the same place.

      Even if it's code that has to go, it's only 80 lines - the BSD people replaced a lot more than that from scratch after the AT&T lawsuit.

    4. Re:Wasn't a good test by ctve · · Score: 1
      Most Analysts for groups (and I'll add most writers in computer journals) know nothing about the practicalities of delivering software in a real environment, and have never worked in a development team.

      Is Didio a coder? Nope. Ex software project manager? Nope? Maybe ex-tech support engineer? Nope. She's a writer.

      To review code IMO it helps to have once written a program or two.

    5. Re:Wasn't a good test by haggar · · Score: 1

      Do you actually know anything about Laura DiDio? She has been a very knowledgeable network systems journalist. I'd say it takes brains and knowledge to analyze network management systems the way she did.

      --
      Sigged!
    6. Re:Wasn't a good test by ctve · · Score: 1
      What 'network management systems' are we talking about? And how did she analyze them? Did she work in a company with them for a couple of years and find the strengths and weaknesses? Maybe I've been tainted by idiot journalists making pronouncements with no real experience of what does and does not work in the real world.

      I've been through Google looking at articles/reports/interviews with her, and it's lots of stuff about Linux vs Windows TCO, Licensing etc.

      Her BA is in Communications and French.

      12 years a reporter.

      Where's the coding or practical experience?

    7. Re:Wasn't a good test by haggar · · Score: 1

      Where's the coding or practical experience?
      She might have, or she might not. I didn't argue either way. I countered your unsubstantiated claim that she is just "a writer".

      --
      Sigged!
    8. Re:Wasn't a good test by ctve · · Score: 1
      Well, I think you added the 'just'.

      I said that she was a writer, my implication being that she wasn't a coder. From the information I read on the Giga website, I can see nothing that suggested that she has done anything except be a writer on this issue. Now, that may mean that she's really studied networks hard, but that's not the same as either managing networks, or managing people managing networks. If you are standing on the sidelines, it's not the same as playing.

      What do you mean by I'd say it takes brains and knowledge to analyze network management systems the way she did.

      What "network management systems", and in what "way she did"?

  43. Just sad... by portwojc · · Score: 1

    I read these comments and think.

    What if this situation were reversed? Oh the cries we'd here of that.

    1. Re:Just sad... by petabyte · · Score: 1

      No, the point is the Aberdeen group has already demonstrated some very questionable results in the past.

      Would there be cries if the situation were reversed? On Slashdot? Surely you jest...
      I think almost anybody here who reads Slashdot regularly knows its pro-linux.

      I thought that was in the FAQ :)

    2. Re:Just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. But here is the difference. The Linux community would ASK for the code to be removed before taking legal action. That is a BIG difference my friend. Especially when we are only talking 80 LINES OF CODE!

    3. Re:Just sad... by Yorrike · · Score: 1
      Considering that the Linux Kernel is released under the GPL, any uproar attached to the role reversal would be well placed.

      If such code were stolen (and it undoubtably has been at some point), however, I doubt the theif would be flashing their source code around.

      --

      Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

    4. Re:Just sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aside from SCO, who says the situation ISN'T reversed? Similar code is only evidence that it was copied =from= somewhere =to= somewhere. It doesn't say anything about who copied whom.

    5. Re:Just sad... by spitzak · · Score: 1
      Do you really serioiusly think that which lines were stolen would not be revealed by the GPL crowd? Can you honestly say that you think that would happen?

      If you really believe that, you are a truly sad and pathetic individual.

      There are plenty of rabid zealots on both sides of all these arguments, but I have truly never heard anything as stupid and closed-minded as what you just said. Absolutley unbelievable, and truly sad.

  44. So what? by Domino · · Score: 1

    Since all the code released under the GNU license, who can stop anyone from taking the undisputed code and create a "new" OS?

    If they are threatening to collect licensing fees from Linux user, why not just:

    - Create a new version of Linux, call it differently if thats required for legal reasons
    - Adopt all the code except the problematic stuff
    - Rewrite the few lines of code from scratch

    Or it might even be enough to rewrite the code and distribute updates and patches to everybody. IANAL but how can they collect licensing fees from people that didn't know they were using unlicensed code and will stop using it in the future?

    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that SCO won't tell us which part of the kernel is tainted and must be replaced.

  45. NDA & Comment Question by attobyte · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Could someone that seen the code tell you the comments so we could get it out of the Linux Kernel. I somewhat read the NDA and all I saw was stuff about code. It would be cool if that was a loophole SCO didn't think about.

    Mike

    --
    I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!

    Mike

    1. Re:NDA & Comment Question by vandan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      OMG OMG OMG!

      MOD PARENT UP!

    2. Re:NDA & Comment Question by Worf+Maugg · · Score: 1

      Does the NDA JUST prohibit the discloser of the offending code? No need to disclose the code just it's location. Right?

    3. Re:NDA & Comment Question by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      I somewhat read the NDA and all I saw was stuff about code.

      Section 3, like most NDAs, claims everything including but not limited to the word "Pella" etched on SCO's office windows.

      3. Definition of Confidential Information. " Confidential Information" means any and all data, technology, research, inventions, intellectual property, trade secrets, know how, computer programs, source code, file names, file trees or extensions, works of authorship, products, processes, methods, customer names, plans, forecasts, prices, business information, financial information, and other information shown or relayed by SCO to RECIPIENT on _______________________ [date].

      --
      Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    4. Re:NDA & Comment Question by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 1
      Could you please point me to a copy of the NDA?

      I've got some questions about it. Among other things, From what little I know of the NDA so far, the comments of the 'independent' analysts already goes beyond what the NDA for the general public allows. If my initial observation is true, then I'd say that it might be a sign that they are actually friendly to SCO, and not just independent analysts looking at the code (I.E. they were given a different NDA than we might get because SCO was expecting positive comments from them).

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  46. Who's to say they didn't steal them from Linux? by 1stflight · · Score: 1

    Given that the Linux Kernel is very well documented, from the standpoint of which line of code was added when and by who. If the Linux kernel had those features (or code) in it, before Unixware did, then who's to say they didn't steal it from us?

    --
    3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still
    1. Re:Who's to say they didn't steal them from Linux? by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      Given that the Linux Kernel is very well documented, from the standpoint of which line of code was added when and by who. If the Linux kernel had those features (or code) in it, before Unixware did, then who's to say they didn't steal it from us?

      Linux supporters, however, were quick to question the meaning of the evidence. âoeCan SCO prove that this code came from SCO to Linux, and not from Linux to SCO?â asked Jon âoeMaddogâ Hall, executive director of Linux International (Nashua, N.H.), a Linux advocacy organization.

      Can 1stflight prove that these concepts came from himself rather than Maddog, and not from Maddog to 1stflight?

  47. I also have found similarities by Dodge+This · · Score: 2, Funny

    After running extensive searches and comparisons using diff, ls, grep and more I have found that both system contain the letters U, N, I, and X - albeit transposed somewhat. My next project is to use perl to count the number of times the character 'e' appears in the source code of each, when I have my findings I will submit them here. I think you will all be very surprised at the results which will no doubt support SCO's claims.

    But seriously if the code if virutally identical then SCO have nothing to lose by making it publically available. By SCO's thinking the code is ALREADY available under GPL.

    1. Re:I also have found similarities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yawn....

  48. It's The Canopy Group by vandan · · Score: 2, Informative
    The Canopy Group (owners of SCO) used to sing a different tune a few years back...
    eg:
    "The global demand for Linux-based Internet solutions is not only staggering â" but skyrocketing," said Ralph Yarro, president of the Canopy Group Investment Company. "Major solutions providers are under a great deal of pressure to provide a full range of Linux-based Internet solutions ranging from hand held devices to enterprise level connectivity. Leveraging the strength of Lineo in the embedded market will allow OpenLinux to scale to meet the needs of all business customers."

    Also from the same page the chairman of the Canopy Group Investment Company, Ray Noorda is a former Novell CEO.

    What do you think the chances are that Novell knew of the code copying (if it occured that is) but chose to not pursue it, and this Ray Noorda tipped The Canopy Group off as to the potential litigation value in it, so they bought it up, and drummed up a bit of support for it so they could turn around later and hit all the 'skyrocketing' growth potential Ralph Yarro was talking about?
    1. Re:It's The Canopy Group by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What do you think the chances are that Novell knew of the code copying (if it occured that is) but chose to not pursue it, and this Ray Noorda tipped The Canopy Group off as to the potential litigation value in it...

      Pretty low, since this Ray Noorda is generally credited with pushing USL to an agreement back in the day of AT&T vs BSD.

    2. Re:It's The Canopy Group by Watts+Martin · · Score: 1

      The chances are roughly zero. Eventually people will get this through their heads, but I'll repost an earlier clarification of this again.

      Ray Noorda isn't involved at all with Novell now and has never, despite repeated assertions to the contrary on Slashdot, been directly involved with Caldera. The Canopy Group funded the original Caldera as a spinoff of a defunct Novell project ("Expose," an attempt at a corporate-friendly Linux long before other companies had thought of it). He wasn't a founder of Caldera, nor of the original SCO, and because it bears repeating, the current SCO has no management in common with either the original SCO (now Tarantella) or the circa-1995 Caldera Systems.

      Furthermore, while Canopy Group's web page proudly mentions they were founded by Ray Noorda in 1995, he's no longer listed anywhere on their management page.

      * * *

      A 1999 statement by the Canopy Group that Linux was going to be a source of skyrocketing growth proves nothing other than, well, they believed what half the other VCs in the world seemed to in 1999. I don't see why (some) people here are insisting on trying to blame the current SCO debacle on Noorda; he hated Microsoft long before it was fashionable, and saw the value in Linux years before anyone else in the Fortune 500 world did. If anything, if he was still involved with the Canopy Group, I suspect they'd be more likely to issue a statement distancing themselves from this fiasco.

  49. Kernel pedigree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I think that a project should be started to locate the source for every line of code in the linux kernel (not as hard as it might seem, since all lines can be quickly pinpointed to the patch that introduced it by looking at the patches at kernel.org, and then searching the mailing list archives to find the submission. Few patches are not discussed in the mailing list or appear in some alternate tree first).

    This way, we can:
    1. Locate all code that came from IBM, and thus all code that might be what the SCO people are talking about. Then, it would be a simple matter of looking at UnixWare to see if it has the same funcionality somewhere.
    2. When (if) the case goes to court, since the origin of everything is already annotated, it would be much quicker to check every claim.
    3. Help the guys who get the NDAs (they could use it to check the source of every claimed infrigiment, and see if it really came from IBM).

  50. The Shame of It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, the company itself is "worth" at the moment a total of 110 million dollars. If someone had been smart, say the Open Source Community itself or a beneficent consortium it might have been possible to buy the company out for considerably less than that only half a year ago, before this insane plan to poison Linux came to mind.

    The company could have been purchased and the materials therein made free and clear available to all or held in trust.

    Too bad, as now there is a risk even though this is supposed to be an IBM problem only that it will hurt Open Source adoption just when things are taking off.

    Why does this have the stink of the Beast of Redmond all over it?

  51. Eureka! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny


    Maybe someone at SCO ran The Bible Code on the Linux source and found the words "Linux, SCO, rip-off".

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Eureka! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing about the bible code is that people claim it has anything to do with religion. God gave his instructions for how to receive his word in the bible (and other books ancient and modern, many of which have been lost). None of them, I'm sure, mention equidistant letter spacing.

  52. Two previous post provide sufficient defense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The following two posts, taken from previous stories concenrning SCO, quite beautifully sum up IBM's best potential defense.

    The first post, taken from a June 3rd story, points out the relative significance of a situation in which everything that SCO has said is true, and it even is a bit optimistic in favor of SCO's claims (but it still puts things in perspective):

    Ok so we have this quote:

    "The month of June is show-and-tell time," McBride said. "Everybody's been clamoring for the code...and we're going to show hundreds of lines of code."

    So lets assume "hundreds of lines of code" is our N value. Now let N equal... oh... we'll be lenient on our definition of "hundreds" and make N = 5000.

    Ok so we've got our hypothetical 5000 lines of offending code. Now lets count the number of lines in every .c file in linux-2.4.20.tar.bz2 ...

    TMPFILE=`mktemp /tmp/$0.XXXXXXX` for i in $(for i in $(for i in $(find ./|grep "\.c"|grep -v Documentation);do cat $i|wc -l;done);do echo $i;done);do echo -n $i+>>${TMPFILE};done;echo "0">>${TMPFILE};echo quit>>${TMPFILE};bc -q ${TMPFILE};rm ${TMPFILE}

    Which gives us 3332935 (including comments but hey we're lazy).

    And this seems reasonable give that according to this link [geocrawler.com] which shows ~1.8 million for a 2.2 kernel so yeah hey what's another 1.5 million between friends? (think of all the new hardware support)

    Ok so we've got our probably bogus number of ~3.3 million lines of code. Remember N? Come on you can do the next step its fun!

    5000 / 3332935 == 0.0015% and lets be super generous and assume comments make up 40% of our line count...

    5000 / 1999761 == 0.0025%

    I wonder what the statistical liklihood of having similiar blocks of code of some signifigant size that happen to be the same (excluding format and variable differences). I mean there's only so many ways one can _intelligently_ code a given function

    Given those kind of percentages I doubt a judge or jury could be convinced of any copyright infringement of any signifigance. It'd be kind like trying to sue a competing encyclopedia company for swiping that one entry in the "P" volume on "Petards" ("hoisting", "petard", look it up) from you and demanding millions of dollars in compensation for this plagerism (ok so this analogy sucks but I had petards on my mind so...)

     The second post, taken from a June 6th story, highlights the fact that something fishy would have had to have been going on within SCO's ranks for a block of code with full comments to be submitted for inclusion into the Linux kernel:

    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

    1. Re:Two previous post provide sufficient defense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ???

      find . -name \*.c -print | xargs cat | wc -l

    2. Re:Two previous post provide sufficient defense... by sbaker · · Score: 1


      > I wonder what the statistical liklihood of having similiar blocks of code
      > of some signifigant size that happen to be the same (excluding format and
      > variable differences). I mean there's only so many ways one can
      > _intelligently_ code a given function

      I think the odds of this code "just happening" to be the same is vanishingly
      small.

      How many different forms can a line of code take? A thousand maybe? (I'm
      sure it's a LOT more than that - but let's go with just 10 different C code
      statements that could be used at any given point in the code.)

      Starting at any given line in the Linux source, the chances of the first line
      of the UNIX source being the same is 1:10, the chances of the first TWO lines
      being the same is 1:100, the chances of N lines of code matching is one
      in ten to the power N. For 80 lines to match, that's a one in
      10^80 AGAINST chance (a VERY large number). If there are 3 million lines
      of code in Linux, then there are 3 million (or so) places where you could start
      your comparison - so the final odds of finding 80 lines of matching code by
      chance alone is something like 10^74 to one against.

      When you also consider matching comments and variable names, the odds are
      lengthened considerably.

      When you consider that many 80 line sequences are not legal C, the odds shorten
      some.

      This isn't by any means a rigorous scientific measure of the improbability
      of an exact match coming up by chance - but the 'back-of-envelope' math makes
      it evident that the odds are overwhelming.

      So: By any reasonable measure of doubt, even a dozen lines of identical code would be as close to a certainty that one was copied from the other as you could possibly imagine.

      --
      www.sjbaker.org
    3. Re:Two previous post provide sufficient defense... by wilddur · · Score: 1

      May be the odds are small... but the cmpensation should be small. If they have lost, let say 10 billions, but theere are 300 lines... IBM should pay 0.0025% of 10 billions... 250.000$ It is bad, but not too much for IBM. It seems that layers will cost much more. And I'm talking aboutte worst case. 10 billions dollars...

    4. Re:Two previous post provide sufficient defense... by wkjel · · Score: 1

      This is also a good argument that the offending lines, if indeed they originated in SYS5V4 and not Linux or some other common source, cannot be any essential part of the kernel. Core kernel code would be far too dependent on datastructures and interfaces that would only be identical if Linus had been reading from SYS5V4 code all along. I think this would have been noticed long before now ;).

      It's more likely that any copied code is in some section of code with a well defined interface and that requires few call out to other kernel facilities - perhaps in a portion of a device driver for some less-than-common device.

    5. Re:Two previous post provide sufficient defense... by sbaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes - indeed. It would certainly have to be something pretty self-contained.

      It's rare to find any 80 line stretch of code that could be incorporated without at least some significant changes.

      --
      www.sjbaker.org
    6. Re:Two previous post provide sufficient defense... by haggar · · Score: 1

      5000 / 1999761 == 0.0025%

      That's wrong. It's 0.25% :
      assuming that 1999761 ~= 2000000
      5000/2000000 = 5/2000 = 1/4 %
      = 0.25 %

      That's two orders of magnitude bigger.

      --
      Sigged!
  53. On identical comments ... by zonix · · Score: 0

    Anyone who has snooped around in the Linux kernel code and who have read the Linux Kernel Coding Style doc, would follow these commenting rules. I quote:

    Generally, you want your comments to tell what your code does, not how.

    Now, that's good advice anytime. This may be a long shot, but think about this in the light of SCO's claims.

    z
    --
    What would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
    1. Re:On identical comments ... by SpiffyMarc · · Score: 1
      This is pretty much true with all comments in code, not just those for the Linux kernel.
      i++; /* increment i */
      is less helpful then
      i++; /* increment our widget control counter */
      which tells why we are incrementing i. (crappy contrived example)

      With that in mind, read this. Heheh.
    2. Re:On identical comments ... by zonix · · Score: 1
      This is pretty much true with all comments in code, not just those for the Linux kernel.

      Hence the, good advice anytime part. :-)

      Anyway, "i++;" usually speaks for itself in the context it's placed - unless one codes particularly bad.

      z
      --
      What would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
  54. GOTO Hell, SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I have been worried about this for some time. Thinking about going to Solaris replacing Linux, until today.

    Now that I know SUN buys its Unix license from SCO, they both can fucking french kiss my ass.

  55. What 80 lines of code mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Especially when "# find /usr/src/linux -type f | xargs grep -i copyright" returns 8835 lines of copyright comments like that one: /usr/src/linux/arch/i386/kernel/vm86.c: * Copyright (C) 1994 Linus Torvalds

    hmmm?

  56. here is the identical comment... by 5prite · · Score: 1

    /* this code is broken! */ /* XXX why the hack can this code be broken if we have copied this from SCO? */

    1. Re:here is the identical comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more like:

      /// I haxored this code from SCO. Bow down to me. */

      and

      //* Bi8Bow7Z says hi to G#ost4og. Thanx for the SCO warez****///

      along with

      #include {../wankorz/SCO.stuff.h.c}

      and finally...

      //This is an OpenSCO-inspired linked list structure.
      //It functions with the help of a POINTER
      //that points back to itself!!!
      //Bye, bye static arrays!!

  57. Things are getting worse for Linux. by aussersterne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a lengthy prediction, and I'll probably get modded down for it, but hey, Slashdot is all about having fun by voicing one's opinion, so here I go.

    You know and I know that SCO's case is meaningless and that even if some hapless SCO, Caldera or IBM idiot inserted code into Linux, that code can be quickly removed and replaced and a new kernel distributed to people using Linux.

    You and I also know that it is much more likely that code made its way from Linux into SCO, or from BSD into both, and that SCO's "side-by-side code" demonstration technique doesn't hold up to solid reasoning.

    However, very few people in business are going to understand this. Management are scared idiots, American management doubly so. They're going to stay away from Linux in droves and are already feeling personally betrayed by the people who make Linux, just on the strength of the FUD and accusations. They're already at home telling the wife how big a mistake Linux was and how they should have listened to the doubters.

    It's natural for them to take this view so easily because they've been conditioned all their lives to believe that "there's no such thing as a free lunch" and "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" and after years of business training they're suspect of anything (even family matters) that don't emphasize the "bottom line" above all else. They were very reluctant to consider Linux in the first instance for these reasons and it took years of badgering on technical grounds and tempting on cost grounds from technical underlings to stop them from seeing Linux as some kind of a scam in the first place.

    The courts in the US, unfortunately, have the same view. If it's corporation versus non-corporation, the corporation will always get the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof will always be on the non-corporation, regardless of what the "law" may say, and in many cases, it's impossible for the non-coproration to win a case; the court will simply rule for the corporation even if it's patently obvious that the law doesn't support such a ruling. They'll do it with a backhanded wink and a nod and the belief that to hurt business and "the economy" is far worse that to hurt any non-business entity or group of individuals.

    For these reasons, Linux in the US will likely suffer horribly over the next few months or perhaps even several years. In fact, it's doubtful that Linux will ever recover the "inevitable force" swagger that it has had over the last few months in that country. Instead, Linux will continue to grow across the rest of the world and the US will lose yet another technical and cultural advantage in the interests of supporting business above all else.

    Hmm, maybe it's not so much a prediction as a fear. But I can't help but think that SCO has turned a corner on this one, not in terms of their case from an honest perspective, but in terms of the effect they're having.

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    1. Re:Things are getting worse for Linux. by ^Case^ · · Score: 2, Informative
      The courts in the US, unfortunately, have the same view. If it's corporation versus non-corporation, the corporation will always get the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof will always be on the non-corporation...[snip]

      I believe both SCO and IBM would be categorized as corporations by the court. Not quite sure what non-corps you suggest could be sued?
    2. Re:Things are getting worse for Linux. by jeffy124 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, very few people in business are going to understand this. Management are scared idiots, American management doubly so.

      You seem to have duped into a stereotypical line of thinking. Most people in business are very intelligent, yet your opinion is based on the anecdotes of a select few. Likewise for lawyers. Your opinion is based on anecdotes of a few. Most managers listen to their IT people and their lawyers do research when they dont understand something. This includes finding out things like the significance of 80 lines of code in relation to the rest of the product as a whole.

      Additionally, any lawyer for a company receiving one of SCO's letters saying that through their use of [some-non-SCO] Linux distro, they're violating some law and should cease usage. Any lawyer will interpret that as the equivalent of Ford telling GM car owners their cars are illegal, and they should buy Ford cars. (If you wanna know how hard it is to be a lawyer, try some sample LSAT questions.)

      If it's corporation versus non-corporation, the corporation will always get the benefit of the doubt.

      Not so. I dont where you got this opinion from. US Courts require evidence from the plaintiffs of a case, just as the defense has oppurtunity to refute and present counter evidence. I think you're basing your opinion on cases that get settled outside the courtroom, where the definition of the "law" can be easily ignored.

      Recall the case of Victorias Secret vs. the mom-and-pop Victors Little Secret. The case was trademark related, Victorias Secret claimed VLS was hurting their profits and sales by having a similar name. I dont know what the intermediate rulings in the case were, but each hearing VLS asked evidence be presented of actual harm. The case eventually got before the Supreme Court, who ruled that in trademark cases, the victim (ie, plaintiff) must show evidence of actual harm being done.

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    3. Re:Things are getting worse for Linux. by flafish · · Score: 1

      Sadly, you might be right. Even if it turns out that the code was not SCO's to start with, the damage will already have been done by the time the case ends. Unless it gets thrown out of court. As soon as the code is made public, it will be replaced, if it is SCO's. The problem then would be, is there any other code that is copied.

      Simple way to solve the case is to check each version of Linux back to the point where the supposed code is not there, and then compare with SCO's code of the same time, with *BSD code of the same time, and MS's code of the same time. Remember, M$ had a version of UNIX also. Maybe MS is the one who put the code in Linux, if it is there.

    4. Re:Things are getting worse for Linux. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For these reasons, Linux in the US will likely suffer horribly over the next few months or perhaps even several years. In fact, it's doubtful that Linux will ever recover the "inevitable force" swagger that it has had over the last few months in that country. Instead, Linux will continue to grow across the rest of the world and the US will lose yet another technical and cultural advantage in the interests of supporting business above all else.

      Hey, that sounds good to me!

    5. Re:Things are getting worse for Linux. by TheFrood · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is a lengthy prediction, and I'll probably get modded down for it,

      Nothing like a good bit of karma-martyring, eh?

      However, very few people in business are going to understand this. Management are scared idiots, American management doubly so. They're going to stay away from Linux in droves and are already feeling personally betrayed by the people who make Linux, just on the strength of the FUD and accusations. They're already at home telling the wife how big a mistake Linux was and how they should have listened to the doubters.

      It's natural for them to take this view so easily because they've been conditioned all their lives to believe that "there's no such thing as a free lunch" and "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" and after years of business training they're suspect of anything (even family matters) that don't emphasize the "bottom line" above all else. They were very reluctant to consider Linux in the first instance for these reasons and it took years of badgering on technical grounds and tempting on cost grounds from technical underlings to stop them from seeing Linux as some kind of a scam in the first place.

      Your argument, like so many others I've seen along these lines, seems to be predicated on the assumption that the people who make it into management are blithering idiots. I've seen no evidence to support this notion. Yes, they do think differently from tech people. Yes, occasionally a single management type will make a bad decision as a result of misunderstanding a technical issue. But to label these people as a class as idiots is a major error.

      Aside from that, you make numerous other unsupported claims in the above two paragraphs. (e.g., "They're already at home telling the wife how big a mistake Linux was and how they should have listened to the doubters." Really? How do you know this?)

      The courts in the US, unfortunately, have the same view. If it's corporation versus non-corporation, the corporation will always get the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof will always be on the non-corporation, regardless of what the "law" may say, and in many cases, it's impossible for the non-coproration to win a case; the court will simply rule for the corporation even if it's patently obvious that the law doesn't support such a ruling. They'll do it with a backhanded wink and a nod and the belief that to hurt business and "the economy" is far worse that to hurt any non-business entity or group of individuals.

      Well, assuming that this assertion you make is true (again, you provide no supporting evidence, so it's rather difficult to evaluate, but assuming for the moment that it is true) then Linux is safe because IBM is a much bigger corporation than SCO, and upholding SCO's claims would do far more damage to the economy than a ruling in favor of IBM.

      TheFrood

      --
      If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
    6. Re:Things are getting worse for Linux. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LSAT, hard? ha!

    7. Re:Things are getting worse for Linux. by santiag0 · · Score: 1

      Real World Example:
      This is already affecting my job.
      I work for a company that is a subsidiary of a fortune 500 company. Our parent company got the warning letter from SCO a few weeks ago.
      Our company got an edict from our parent company stating
      that their position currently is "to cease any use of Linux as
      soon as possible to avoid potential litigation costs".

      Our company president has told us to come up with
      a plan to migrate any Apps ( Web Server is main
      one, several others though) currently running on Linux to something else.

      He first was saying Windows (God, makes my hair
      stand on end thinking about having to admin Win 2000 and IIS, and use ASP instead of PHP), but cooler heads have prevailed, and worst case is some flavor of Unix now.

      Still, this will be a major hassle and expense. So
      in one respect SCO/Microsoft has already won.

      Their FUD is working, and affecting me personally.
      Will Linux go away? No. Will Linux be around and and growing 5 years from now? I think so. Is corporate America in CYA mode now, and over-reacting in fear - absolutely.

      I took this job for several reasons, the primary one
      was the ability to use open source tools:
      Linux/Apache/MySQL/Perl/PHP

      now, this is threatened.

      Our company president has told me if the decision were
      his alone, he would probably do nothing now, wait it out
      and see what happens. But, like a lot of corporate america,
      he doesn't get to make decisions alone, and is being dictated
      to by our parent company. Large companies like that will
      look at this, succumb to the obvious FUD, and think the safest
      path is just to bail on Linux and Open Source.

      this really f**king sucks.

    8. Re:Things are getting worse for Linux. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am CEO of a business. We use Linux. It works. Every day, as a business, you face potential legal problems (most bogus, some not) from employees, vendors, customers, and competitors. That is nothing new or scary.

      What I say to SCO is the same thing I say to anyone with a potential lawsuit against me or my company--fuck you. Seriously, fuck you.

      There are some huge and obvious holes in their case. They distributed GPL. They aren't taking steps that would lead to the nearly immediate removal of the code (so damages may have stopped accruing).

      Finally, about their lawyer, David Boies. Well, he got spanked by Microsoft. Microsoft never really took any real damage from the Justice Dept., even when their monopoly power was at its height. Good job, David. Worse for him (and SCO's hopes), by his ill-considered trickery, David Boies managed to ensure a George W. Bush presidency. All the Gore legal team had to do was ask for recount throughout Florida and they probably would have prevailed all the way to the White House. But they tried trickery instead, and the rest of history.

      SCO's reminds me of the Gore position in Florida. They may well have a case, but instead of honestly trying to resolve it, they are trying tricks. Hey Al, how did that work out for you?

      It is absurd to equate the leaders of American business with middle manager. The companies that have saved tens of millions with Linux infrastructures are not going to be intimidated or swayed off course by a notice letter or a bunch of chattering analysts.

    9. Re:Things are getting worse for Linux. by mark-t · · Score: 1
      As soon as the code is made public, it will be replaced, if it is SCO's
      It would *HAVE* to be replaced if it is SCO's. Simply in order to comply with the terms of the GPL. The terms that SCO apparently wishes to place on their code is not compatible with the GPL, so their code has to be removed. The speed with which their code is changed (it would probably be within mere hours of finding out where it is) could not reasonably be used as defense that the code is less valuable than SCO might claim because of the much more legally significant precedent that the code needed to be removed in order to be compliant with the GPL.
      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    10. Re:Things are getting worse for Linux. by elyalvarado · · Score: 1

      However, very few people in business are going to understand this. Management are scared idiots, American management doubly so.

      Suppose it is like you say. Well, then investors are also pretty idiots confusing Linux with VALinux in the stock exchange . . . and if you check at the stock prices for VALinux in the last month they are going up just because Ballmer said something in a memo about linux being mico$oft's main concern ... and there haven`t been any negative effect produced by SCO`s claims.

      ----
      But then again, i don't think layers nor managers are idiots, the fact that they don't know a lot about computers doesn't make them idiots.

      --
      Ely Alvarado If you remember a nice signature imagine it here
    11. Re:Things are getting worse for Linux. by antiMStroll · · Score: 1
      Management are scared idiots, American management doubly so.

      Linux use extends far beyond the American borders. Anybody believe China or India will be cowed by SCO and Boise? A one-in-a-million SCO win might hurt American competitiveness, but it won't hurt Linux.

    12. Re:Things are getting worse for Linux. by po8 · · Score: 1

      Recall the case of Victorias Secret vs. the mom-and-pop Victors Little Secret. The case was trademark related, Victorias Secret claimed VLS was hurting their profits and sales by having a similar name. I dont know what the intermediate rulings in the case were, but each hearing VLS asked evidence be presented of actual harm. The case eventually got before the Supreme Court, who ruled that in trademark cases, the victim (ie, plaintiff) must show evidence of actual harm being done.

      This is your evidence that the court system is even-handed? So Victoria's sues VLS, takes them over the course of years through several rounds of litigation, and VLS finally prevails. Hooray for the little guy. Who knows, they may have even been reimbursed for the legal fees and court time that they incurred---years later. If VLS is still in business, they are lucky. Further, there's little to stop Victoria's or someone else from just walking through it again on some slightly different pretext until VLS is dead.

      The fact of the matter is that in the US, unless you have deep pockets, you lose de facto at the moment you have to start paying lawyers. Until this situation is remedied (how?), our civil system is primarily a tool for heavily monied interests to muscle out the less-financially-endowed.

    13. Re:Things are getting worse for Linux. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, you completely missed the point. the guy was talking about evidence in court. The BSA, for instance, had no evidence when they sent a takedown request to an OpenOffice mirror. The RIAA doesnt actually download mp3s before sending C&Ds - they just grep on filenames. Should any of these scenarios ever go to court (very unlikely, btw) - the BSA/RIAA would have to present copies of the offending files, a record of how they obtained them, and proof they own the copyright. These would be required in court. Outside, apparently no one cares.

  58. What did you say they wanted? by Lumpish+Scholar · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "SCO is not trying to destroy Linux," said [Laura] DiDio of the Yankee Group. "That's silly. This is about paying royalties."
    We don't want to destroy privacy; we just want to be able to track terrorists.

    We don't want to destroy fair use; we just want to make sure the artists get paid for their work.

    We don't want to destroy free software; we just want to be paid every time someone uses it.

    <sarcasm>Yeah, right.</sarcasm>
    --
    Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
    1. Re:What did you say they wanted? by panthan · · Score: 1

      DiDio's statement makes me question her impartiality or her intelligence, or both.

      SCO claims that linux is costing them hundreds of millions of dollars per year, and yet doesn't want to destroy it? Of course they want to destroy it. They know they can't, at least insofar as they can't force people to stop writing it, and they can't stop people from using a version once it has the code they claim is copied replaced. But they can hope that this lawsuit will make all enterprise customers too scared to adopt it.

      Chris Sontag said in the ComputerWorld interview (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/29/17522 08&mode=thread&tid=123&tid=187&tid=88&tid= 99) that linux "has an intellectual property foundation that, by almost everyone's admission, is built on quicksand." That's what they're hoping will destroy it. Who wants to depend on an OS that leaves you open to any clown who wants to claim that somewhere in that 3 million lines of code lies something that belongs to him?

      I don't know anywhere near enough about IP law to guess how successful they'll be. Probably, however, anyone who shows any kind of infringement can demand at least that all users immediately cease use or pay for a license. Since ceasing use means shutting down your business, it isn't really an option. So how to avoid it? Well, SCO will mention that you could always just license from them, and you'll be safe.

    2. Re:What did you say they wanted? by the+gnat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Very funny, but all of the Slashbots who talk about "sharing" music or software with their anonymous "friends" on the Internet are just as guilty of doublespeak.

      Regardless, SCO has to actually prove some violation before they can get royalties from any company with a legal department. The quote is actually sort of funny if you think about it: it's not about wrath, it's about greed. Wrong deadly sin, guys. I think she would have sounded a little better if she'd said it was about "protecting intellectual property rights".

    3. Re:What did you say they wanted? by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1

      SCO claims that linux is costing them hundreds of millions of dollars per year, and yet doesn't want to destroy it? Of course they want to destroy it.

      No they don't, they want to co-opt it. They want Linux to flurish *and* get paid for it. You think if they destroyed linux all of the sudden all of the businesses who were migrating stuff to linux would all of the sudden migrate to OpenUnix or UnixWare? Hell no, they'd to to Windows or another well known (i.e. bigger, more stable) unix provider. Why do you think they have people line Boise and the Abeerdeen group bending over backwards to say this isn't about destroying Linux? Because if they win its in their best intrest for Linux to be successful because they'll get a cut of every deployment.

  59. Take the SCO challenge and answer the SCO riddle! by Gnulix · · Score: 1

    The SCO riddle

  60. Re:w00t by Ignominious+Cow+Herd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hey, another geek who likes golf. That makes 2 by my count.

    --
    Lump lingered last in line for brains, and the ones she got were sorta rotten and insane.
  61. Re:80 Lines of code = less revenue? - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they can take the chance. And there are more than 80 lines in question. They are not going to show all they got (if they got some).

  62. I've seen this kind of thing before... by DaHat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Two blocks of code looking identical is nothing new to me, a couple of years ago I had a couple of friends be accused of cheating in one of their programming classes. The source of this accusation was the teacher who thought one was copying from the other as almost each assignment theyâ(TM)d turn in were identical other then the names at the top.

    It wasnâ(TM)t until they put them in two different rooms and asked them to write the same thing that they found that these two had virtually identical ways of coding, not just the code itâ(TM)s self, but the variables uses, the code formatting and even the comments. Everyone was surprised, and eventually the accusation of cheating was dropped.

    The moral of this story is that two blocks of code can be identical, itâ(TM)s very rare, just remember the infinite monkey principal.

    --
    Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    1. Re:I've seen this kind of thing before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess - the two people who produced similar code were also pretty good programmers?

      Good programming practices in most languages are fairly well-established, and consistent stylistic and methodological practices have emerged that are "de-facto standard". Some projects have internally consistent coding practices to the extent that for most of the code, it's impossible to tell who wrote what parts.

      As for the actual solutions used in code, usually a straightforward solution using good, established techniques is better than something too original. So an experienced programmer taking a non-advanced programming class is likely to produce predictable, straightforward solutions.

    2. Re:I've seen this kind of thing before... by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      For a given problem in a given context, there should be a cannonical source code, comments included, to solve that problem. The individualistic quirks that depart from the cannonical form are not a good thing. The more programming matures, the more likely identical solutions would become.

    3. Re:I've seen this kind of thing before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or maybe they had the same teachers for years and years...

    4. Re:I've seen this kind of thing before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, which monkeys so far have produced Shakespeare?

      Your argument resounds of a principled basis among the statistically challenged.

      Same comments, comment positioning? Same variable names? Same mispellings? Same indentations?

      Wishing it is isn't the same as is, buddy.

      Good luck in a court of law with this argument, IBM attorneys.

  63. OSX port by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    #!/bin/bash

    for ((i=0; i<10; i+=1))
    do
    curl -s http://sco.com/images/pdf/education/SCO_AEP_poster files.zip > /dev/null &
    done

  64. Not very convincing by d3faultus3r · · Score: 1

    If SCO truly saw a case they'd show the source to the public. furthermore, Aberdeen has a horrible track record, with tons of biased reports.
    Even if it is true, it could have been that Novell had added the code to both OSs before SCO got their hands on Unix.

    --
    read my blog
    musings on politics and technol
  65. Anyone read the 3 other articles? by ebuck · · Score: 1

    Looks like this Aberdeen group has a bad recent track record getting the facts straight.

    If you read the previous 3 articles at their website, it paints a not so pretty picture for them. They reported AMD was bogosifying their "equavilance" mhz ratings on their chips as given to them by an "AMD insider." A few articles later we discover that it wasn't an AMD insider, but an Intel insider, and that they never checked their sources, credentials, or the accuracy of the report.

    Then they top it off by making a few harsh statements about Intel, but hey, it's like Aberdeen's mistake was, you know, "honest". That was slipshod journalisim at it's best, and using that last article to shift blame shows lack of accountability. Mabye it was an "honest" mistake, but I can't imagine a better matched "friend of SCO" for SCO to come running to in hard times.

  66. That's exactly why SCO won't talk. by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 3, Interesting
    As soon as they know what code is "dirty", if it even is, it is going to be removed.

    Thereby depriving SCO of their revenue stream. They are trying to cast a cloud of FUD over the entire Linux and GNU codebase, to establish de facto ownership of the whole enchilada.

    Yes, it's like slapping a lien on your house over a couple of stolen teacups. What remains to be seen is whether the court will allow it. Can any lawyers comment? (Lawyers, please, not the zillions of IANALs that inhabit these parts.)

    --
    Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
    Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    1. Re:That's exactly why SCO won't talk. by dmaxwell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thereby depriving SCO of their revenue stream. They are trying to cast a cloud of FUD over the entire Linux and GNU codebase, to establish de facto ownership of the whole enchilada.

      The instant they try it, they'll get shotgun blasted by the copyright holders of the portions of Linux they don't "own". They distributed Linux kernels for years under the GPL. Furthermore, they don't own what they didn't develop. Many of those owners will want legal relief for what SCO would steal from them. SCO is trying to commit a far larger theft than what they claim was done to them.

      They can't keep what "infringes" a secret forever. Nor can they use that secret to take ownership of the kernel. Sooner or later, that secret will get out. They'll likely be forced to reveal it. At that point, the provenance of those lines will be established. What actually "infringes" at that point, you could probably count on your fingers. It won't take long to fix.

    2. Re:That's exactly why SCO won't talk. by asink · · Score: 1

      (Lawyers, please, not the zillions of IANALs that inhabit these parts.)
      .... if you were really interested, you would have read some of the _lawyer_ accounts of this case -- I wouldn't think that they have time to post 3x every day for each SCO story. Heck, I ran into at least 2 lawyer accounts, and they were both +5...

      --
      "Hex, Bugs, and Rockn'Roll"
    3. Re:That's exactly why SCO won't talk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it becomes apparent that SCO's bluffing here --or is mistaken as the result of arrogance and/or ignorance and/or blinding greed -- once pretrial discovery starts they're not only going to get hammered with motion practice from their opponents, but by the judge. You don't want to be the proponent of a frivolous case in Federal court, especially since Rule 11 was amended back when I was still trying cases. The irony is that this could turn out to be a repeat of the Novell vs BSD case. Novell would up slithering away on that one, but not before it paid defendant's costs and fees. Although alot of the docs in this case are not out in public yet, from what's been released and what was already common knowledge it's pretty clear that for a long time AT&T was pretty free with both their own source and the source of others that made its way into System V -- especially in their dealings with the U. of California and BSD. If SCO continues to push this thing they may well wind up providing the opportunity to prove that any IP rights AT&T may have had in Unix (along with Novell and SCO by derivation) have for most of its (Unix) existence been unenforceable.

  67. Oh sweet irony by Exiler · · Score: 1

    On the 'friends' link about that groups claims, the advertisement on the side? "Installing Linux - Blindingly Easy"

    --
    Banaaaana!
  68. Mmmmmm. by mcgroarty · · Score: 1
    80 lines for a billion dollars.

    Assuming 40 characters per line on average (which is probably a bit high), that's 3,200 characters, or $312,500.00 per character.

    I am completely willing to write all the $2.5mil "while(1)" loops you like!

  69. Stupid is as stupid does by jbrownc1 · · Score: 1

    Number of lines notwithstanding, if you're going to use someone elses code, at least strip out the comments. It's one of the first things an auditor looks for. Sheesh.

  70. The real problem goes beyond SCO by NotoriousGIB · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The real problem here is that corporations will begin to understand that the open nature of the Linux (and other OS projects) leaves them subject to legal action.

    If Microsoft were to steal code no one would ever know it since their codebase is proprietary. With open source projects not only is this not the case but it is entirely conceivable that dishonest individuals (lots of them these days it seems) would deliberately insert offending code and later claim intellectual property theft.

    With billions of dollars at stake do you honestly think this won't happen? The better question to start asking is how can open source survive this kind of attack? Is it possible that some IP vetting process can be establish that will eliminate this possibility to the satisfaction of companies already stung by a major Linux scandal?

    The whole situation sickens me and I despair for the race of man when I witness the greed of a few bringing so many good people trying to help one another and their community to their knees. There is no future for our society when injustice and corruption are protected by laws bought and paid for by the rich. Why isn't Ken Leigh in jail? If I were to break a window with my elbow and steal a TV I'd suffer more than the man responsible for billions of dollar of economic harm. :-(

    It's a sad day. If you're religious it might be time to say a prayer for this country.

    1. Re:The real problem goes beyond SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simplest long-term solution is to dissolve the idea of IP as a tradeable asset. At present, there are "businessmen" who have never written a line of code in their lives claiming ownership of code millions of developers wrote.
      At a fundamental level, that code is just unusually sprightly discrete mathematics. The whole thing smacks of feudalism, and will eventually collapse under its own weight - most developers can outsmart businessmen if they bother to read a psychology textbook (programming people is a lot like programming really unreliable, crappy, computers.)

  71. More like does IBM keep track of submitters... by TrentC · · Score: 1

    Is it possible to submit a patch to some backwater part of the kernel that improves upon something rather mundane, the kind of thing that doesn't get your picture on the "Top 10 Kernel Gurus" list and then have the identity of the submitter slowly slip away into the ether?

    Or are the kernel submitters kept in some kind of list someplace along with the stuff they submitted?

    Well, since the code in question was supposedly misappropriated by IBM, the real question is whether or not IBM keeps track of its in-house development. It's possible that IBM's contributions were submitted en masse to Linus and company.

    And, since only "independant analysts" has seen the code, there's still no way to tell if the code in question isn't in hundred of textbooks around the world, or that SCO hasn't lifted the code from Linux (or that both came from some other source).

    SCO's not really acting like it's interested in attempting to mitigate damages caused by copyright infringement (they sold their own Linux distribution for months after becoming aware of the alleged infringment), or even about getting compensation from IBM for improperly disclosing its trade secrets (this assumes the trade secrets don't actually belong to Novell in the first place).

    SCO seems to think they'll either be able to make Linux go away or force everyone using Linux to buy an SCO license. They might succeed in the former, at least as far as corporate support and adoption, but the latter will never happen.

    Jay

    1. Re: More like does IBM keep track of submitters... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful


      > SCO seems to think they'll either be able to make Linux go away or force everyone using Linux to buy an SCO license.

      Or the third option - the most probable one IMO - they think they can arrange a buyout or make their stock bolt, providing the funds for a nice set of golden parachutes.

      There is absolutely no way they can take IBM to court without revealing the relevant lines of code to IBM's lawyers, and at that point all the secrecy will become moot. Ergo, they are up to something that they expect to pay off before the case gets to court. Ergo, it's a golden parachute acquisition plan.

      I suspect the SEC will need to look into this before its over with.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  72. like music sampling? by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    if its fair use for musicians to a "sample" snippets of each other's code maybe its okay in software too. 80 lines out of tens of thousands is about the same the interval that a sample occupies in a 2 minute song.

    on a more serious note, could some lawyer answer the question of what pre-trial obligations SCO has to give the LINUX community a chance to rectify the errors. I've read that no actually dmamages can be claimed until the copyright infringement is made known to the offending party. As it is SCO seems to be deliberately letting LINUX twist in the wind a bit as a sort of black mail scheme.

    We all know the resolution of this is that before the next release of the kernel all the offending code will be erased and LINUX developers and users will not be liable for any future damages. Thus SCO's actions seem gratuitous and the trial largely moot.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:like music sampling? by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      Didn't Dr. Dre recently lose a suit for sampling someone elses song?

    2. Re:like music sampling? by cyberformer · · Score: 1

      Fair Use is a fuzzy legal concept, like Reasonable Doubt. There's no fixed definition of how much use is fair.

    3. Re:like music sampling? by dcarrera · · Score: 1
      if its fair use for musicians to a "sample" snippets of each other's code maybe its okay in software too. 80 lines out of tens of thousands is about the same the interval that a sample occupies in a 2 minute song.

      Interesting that you mention that. 80 lines
      out of the 3 million that Linux 2.4 has is equivalent to a 0.0032-second "sample" from a 2-minute song. A single note takes more time than that.

      I can just imagine one musician suing another because they stole one note from their song. :)

      Naturally, that single note turns a song which was the music equivalent of a bicycle into the music equivalent of a luxury car. Therefore, this thief would have to pay $1 billion worth of lost sales incurred by the illegal transfer of this note.

  73. Re:May I make a suggestion... - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We probably can not get the source for UnixWare, but can we get the source for System V ?

    Does someone has that ?

  74. Where are the "hundreds of lines of code"? by gotr00t · · Score: 1

    Earlier, didn't I hear someone from SCO claiming that they had "Hundreds of lines" of code to show? I'm not a mathematician, but it seems to me that 80 100.

  75. 80 lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So that's 12-1/2 million/line that they are asking in damages? Poets really are in the wrong line of work!

  76. no end of line characters by 286 · · Score: 1

    the EOL an CR must have been removed from the diff.

  77. What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + GPL by NZheretic · · Score: 4, Interesting
    SCO's evidence of origin and Function dictates form

    What proof did SCO present for the origin of both fragments of source code?

    What proof did SCO present to show the SCO code did not originally from old BSD,Linux or public domain publications?

    Who put the SCO source into Linux? - Was put there by Old Novell/SCO/Caldera in the first place?

    What proof did SCO provide to show that the person had access to SCO's Unix sources?

    The latter question raises another issue. The similarity is just as likely to be due to both operating systems performing the same role. Form is often directed by the function it performs. Function and variable names are often dictated by the API and common terminology.

    Both the current Linux and Unix kernel developers have attended the similar university courses and read the same publicly available documentation. The works of W. Richard Stevens are very influential as a reference toward modern Unix and Linux and have dictated the implentation of APIs and TCP/IP stacks in both.

    Copyright WHAT Copyright

    From Groklaw.

    Now that copyright is back on the table in the SCO case, you might like to

    read the law on copyright.

    SCO held another telephone conference today, but you had to be on time. I tried to call in later, when I was free, to hear the recording, but although the operator told me it had been recorded, it wasn't being made available. She suggested I contact SCO and ask to hear it. Meanwhile, someone who did listen posted on Slashdot as "mec" and he or she heard this question and answer:

    [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]."

    If this is true, that they failed to register, it puts another interesting twist on this story. (Novell put a twist of its own, by posting a press release on its site saying that while the Amendment that SCO sent them seemed to support their claim "that ownership of certain copyrights for UNIX did transfer to SCO in 1996", Novell doesn't seem to have the amendment in its own files, and patents for sure didn't transfer.)

    It's true you can register a copyright any time, but you can't sue for infringement until you have registered and you can't get certain damages for infringement that occured prior to registration: "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin." Section 411 says it precisely like this:

    " 411. Registration and infringement actions10 (a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), no action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title...."

    You are limited as to remedies without registration, as Section 412 sets forth:

    " 412. Registration as prerequisite to certain remedies for infringement11 In any action under this title, other than an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a) or an action instituted under section 411(b), no award of statutory damages or of attorney'

  78. Re:So what? - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It may not be that simple. If the court will decide that code is somehow critical and all the further development of our kernel happened because of that, we are in a serious trouble then.

  79. Conspiracy Theory by perdelucena · · Score: 1


    Has anyone considered that SCO incorporated Linux kernel code on their code just to cause FUD? I mean, how can they prove itÂs not the other way round? If I was the CEO of an evil failling Corp, I might consider this strategy to promote my company, get some press, etc. The question is how can they prove the code was there before?

    ----
    ThereÂs no truth. This is the good ship lifestyle

  80. Are They Even Showing Linux or SCO Unix Code by blazerw11 · · Score: 1

    SCO has claimed many things, but the code they showed was like a blind taste test.
    "Here, look at this code from, um, let's say, SCO Unix."
    "Now, look at this code which is clearly from the 2.2, er, 2.4 Linux Kernel."

    The code SCO was showing could have been from Tux Racer and Nagios for all the viewers of the code knew.

    It's all crap, I tell ya!

    --
    A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
  81. Ahh.. but a very creative lawyer.. by bigattichouse · · Score: 1


    Would say

    "Do you have documentation to prove that the code you show me wasn't in the linux kernel FIRST, and that you didn't copy said material.."

    --
    meh
  82. Is a rewrite enough? by rdewald · · Score: 1

    Will rewriting the lines that are established as copied from the code be enough? I'm not being argumentative, I really wonder about the law.

    These New York Times guys that just went down for the copied news stories couldn't have gotten away with just changing the word order in the story. It was the fact that they copied their news rather than reported it that was the problem.

    If Linux is found to be a re-draft of someone else's original work is it enough that the ones and zeroes be put in a different order? Again, I am not making an argument here, I actually am wondering about the answer...

    --
    The best way to do is to be.
    1. Re:Is a rewrite enough? by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Since Linux and GNU are almost entirely a re-draft of someone else's original work, and make few claims of being anything else than that, GNU/Linux would already be in trouble if it were that simple.

  83. Bill Claybook can't tell his ass from his elbow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill Claybook is far from a UNIX expert.
    An ex-computer professor, that has held
    numerous "management" positions. Sure he
    may be "researching" certain aspects, but its
    highly unlikely that he, or anyone else at
    the Abeerdeen Group has a clue on a more
    detailed technical level. He certainly would
    not be in a position to tell the difference
    between a code segment from a header file and
    one from source, or to identify where it came
    from.

    This half-assed stupid remarks are pretty weak.
    Its very likely that the lifted code SCO is
    referring to is nothing more than some header
    files, and that 90% of Linux users that recompile their kernel that don't need SCO related filesystem support probably aren't effected at
    all.

    The good news is that this type of incompetence
    opens the Aberdeen Group of for some serious
    legal action. I just hope Linux companies, and IBM step up and take down wasters like this.

    Analysts don't know squat, they are overpaid and overhyped managers who think they know something. For example, I've seen analysts perform security audits and report possible vulnerable systems but were completely fooled by traps that are aimed at script kiddies. One analyst company thought a BSD box was a IIS box running Windows NT4, because the client's IT staff had modified some strings in Apache. The analyst merely ran a tool that pulled
    the host and header information from httpd, rather than performing other test!!

    These people are overpaid and overhyped, and sooner or later CEOs are going to get wind of this and its going to come crashing down around them.

  84. Does it really matter who the lawyer is? by gotr00t · · Score: 1

    Sometimes, this becomes a game of lawyers vs. justice. Sure, they may have an expierenced lawyer, but why does it matter when most of their case is built on FUD and totally irrelevant, skewed details?

    Where is the evidence? 80 lines of code is hardly evidence. Where are the "hundreds of lines" of code that they were mentioning earlier? Finally, how do we know that the evidence was or was not planted there? They could have easily downloaded a Linux kernel, and just copy/pasted the code into it, so that it looks like evidence in the eyes of unskilled people. They probably knew that their NDP would deter most expierenced Linux affiliated developers, keeping their "evidence" safe from expierenced eyes.

    The code alone is not proof, and it dosen't matter what lawyer they use. This is like me visiting my neighbors house, planting something of mine inside, and claiming that they stole it. Even the most expierenced lawyers wouden't be able to convince reasonable people that my neighbor indeed stole that item from me.

    1. Re:Does it really matter who the lawyer is? by Veteran · · Score: 1

      Sorry to disagree, but frames often do work. Only technical people who assume that the law has something to do with 'reasonable' would assume that planting evidence wouldn't work.

      Chances are excellent that almost any prosecutor could convict your neighbors of theft. What would happen is that even the other people would be suspicious of each other; the parents would suspect the kids, and the kids would suspect each other, husband suspect wife and vice versa.

      Even if there were only one person at the other house and he KNEW he didn't steal it - he would have a terrible time proving he didn't steal it.

      And yes, I know the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but once they have shown that the article was the property of the 'victim' and the 'victim' testifies that he didn't give the defendant permission to have the property, they have satisfied their burden of proof, and the burden of proof now shifts to the defendant, who usually doesn't have any way to show he didn't steal it. In fact about the only way the prosecution could lose would be if the defendant had a surveillance tape showing the 'victim' planting the evidence - which is pretty unlikely.

      The law - millions of lines of code - not one of which has ever been tested to see if it works.

  85. BSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean that we should all drop Linux and move to BSD, which has proven that it can survive lawsuits?

  86. Because they're being jerks by Vicegrip · · Score: 1

    Assuming there actually is a violation, if they didn't think that the microsecond they identified 'real SCO code' in the kernel that it would immeadiately get yanked without affecting one iota the functionality of the kernel they'd have already publically fessed up already what they consider to be a violation.

    Linux is an open OS; Microsoft will never open its operating that way for scrutiny. And so, people here rightly feel that SCO is trying to 'piss' in our backyard with some help from Microsoft.

    --
    Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
  87. Gotta get this out of my system by tsa · · Score: 1

    "SCO's actions angered Linux supporters, who allegedly deluged the
    company with angry e-mails, threatened drive-by shootings, and posted
    SCO's executives' home phone numbers and addresses on Web sites."

    Two words: Stupid morons.

    Hehe, now I feel better.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  88. SCO is about as credible... by sofar · · Score: 1


    As the statement that Iraq has weapons of mass-destruction...

    1. Re:SCO is about as credible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just like the Hussien Rgime, they won't let anyone in to look around that they can't control.

    2. Re:SCO is about as credible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you mean the same statement that Tom Daschle, the Democrats, the UN, and even Bill Clinton were saying before the war? If so, then SCO has quite a bit of credibility.

  89. I have here in my hand... by Nucleon500 · · Score: 1

    McBride: "While I cannot take the time to specify my claim, I have here in my hand a list of eighty lines of code that were known to Linus Torvalds as belonging to SCO, and which, nevertheless, are still transforming Linux from a bicycle to a luxury car."

    --
    Litigious bastards
    1. Re:I have here in my hand... by ruronikenshin83 · · Score: 1

      "I have here in my hand verifiable proof that SCO's lines of code are in the Linux kernel. Unfortunately, I cannot show you this, as it is essential to the legal prosecution of my case, so you just have to take my word for it."

      If you replace "SCO lines of code" with "communists" and "being used in the Linux kernel" with "living in America" it kinda shows an eerie resemblance to McCarthyism don't you think?

    2. Re:I have here in my hand... by Nucleon500 · · Score: 1
      Congratulations, you win the stuffed Tux! The original quote is:
      "While I cannot take the time to name all of the men in the State Department who have been named as members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my hand a list of 205 that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who, nevertheless, are still working and shaping the policy in the State Department"
      --
      Litigious bastards
  90. SCO code not original but parts from Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just heard that the code SCO has provided the Aberdeen Group as proof is not SCO's original code but parts seem to be copied and/or rewritten from Linux code which had been developed later. These SCO people are the most evil bastards on the face of the planet!

  91. This just in...the 80 lines were found to be: by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

    /* Drunk now, fix later */

    /* I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue */

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  92. hall of fame by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
    The parent post deserves to be put into some kind of "/. Humor Hall of Fame."

    "/. Humor Hall of Fame", I could read such a thing for hours.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  93. 80 lines wow by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    I don't know how many lines there are in the kernel at the moment. When you think about it, its a kind of nebulous question as you would have to specify which kernel ehich build etc. However 80 lines is pretty small.

    Lets look at SCOS winning scenario

    1. Sco would have to show authorship.
    2. SCO has to show IBM had access to the trade secret
    3. SCO has to show IBM was made aware it was trade secret and agreed to keep it secret (i.e.) It took steps to keep its trade secrets secret


    You have to remember SCO never published the source code to its UNIX. Its propietary and secret. The purpose of copyrights is promote dissemination (yes I am well aware of the reality).

    Now even if you grant SCO did everything neccesesary to protect its source code, theres the question of who put the code in the kernel ? Someone, a person, a human being, had to submit the code.

    Theres the point SCO has to show that an employee of IBM, made the submission with the complicity of IBM. Or at least that IBM didn't live up to its contractual obligations to protect SCO's trade secrets.

    Good luck to SCO

  94. Sure! by krumms · · Score: 1

    int i = 0;

    /* XXX: [dm] can't remember for loop syntax */

    printk( buf[i++] ); /* 0 */
    printk( buf[i++] ); /* 1 */
    printk( buf[i++] ); /* 2 */
    printk( buf[i++] ); /* 3 */
    printk( buf[i++] ); /* 4 */
    printk( buf[i++] ); /* 5 */
    printk( buf[i++] ); /* 6 */
    printk( buf[i++] ); /* 7 */
    printk( buf[i++] ); /* 8 */

    etc.

  95. how this comment got rated "insightful" by dh003i · · Score: 1

    They're not showing any evidence. There is no good rational, legal, reason for not showing the evidence. They lose nothing by showing the evidence. The only logical conclusion is that they are fabricating this as they go along, or are so incompetent that they don't realize that they in fact copied GPL'ed code. If there was any merit to their claim, they should have released the evidence for all to see. Obviously, there isn't.

    --
    social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
  96. FUD, hypocrisy, and disrespect by dwsauder · · Score: 1
    But analysts categorically disagreed with that viewpoint last week. âoeSCO is not trying to destroy Linux,â said DiDio of the Yankee Group. âoeThat's silly. This is about paying royalties.â

    This is absolutely wrong. It is about destroying Linux. Linux is under GPL. Therefore, if any company thought they could pay a royalty to SCO and continue to use Linux, they are deceived. If there is such code in Linux, then to use that code would violate the GPL. Therefore, if SCO cares at all about IP, it must tell everyone to stop using Linux. If SCO tells them to continue to use Linux, but pay a royalty, then they show that they don't care about intellectual property, unless its their intellectual property. How hypocritical. SCO really is trying to destroy Linux.

    This whole SCO vs. Linux situation is so full of FUD. The analysts saw as much as 80 lines of code that appeared to be identical. So, out of millions of lines of code, perhaps a fraction of one percent appears very similar to the Unix code. Yet, according to SCO, that must be a very critical fraction of one percent, because

    SCO contends that by co-opting code from Unix, Linux has severely damaged SCO's intellectual property. According to some estimates, the company collected annual revenue of between $200 million and $250 million on Unix System 5 software before the rise of Linux. After Linux reached the mainstream, those revenue figures dropped to about $60 million a year.

    What's going on here? I think SCO is trying to imply that the code that is the same in Linux and Unix is randomly sampled, meaning that we can then infer that a much larger portion of the Unix code was copied. How else can we explain it? How could stealing -- if it is in fact stealing -- a fraction of one percent of the code base result in "severely" damaging SCO's intellectual property? No, it must be much more than a fraction of one percent. The inference that a much larger portion of Unix code was copied is intended to spread FUD.

    So, some analysts saw sections of as much as 80 lines of code that appear to be copied, and then conclude

    âoeIf IBM wants to cure this problem, they could start by buying all the appropriate licenses and then paying SCO a billion dollars,â Claybrook said. âoeBut SCO now says that a billion may not be enough to cover their damages.â

    There is a serious disconnect here. A few hundred lines of code may have been copied from Unix into Linux -- that being a small fraction of one percent -- and analysts conclude that because of that IBM should pay SCO $1 billion!? Huh?

    Someone has to stand up to the rights of the thousands of developers who put in volunteer time to make their contribution to the Linux code base, agreeing to license their code under GPL. They didn't ask for SCO's Unix code to be mixed with their own code. SCO is showing no respect for the intellectual property of those developers. Rather, SCO is trying to make billions off intellectual property that SCO does not own, all the while preaching the morality of respecting intellectual property.

  97. AS MANY AS 80 ... not "just 80" by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 1
    "he two blocks of software, they said, contained as many as 80 lines of identical code, along with identical developers' comments."

    But, with no evidence that the code went from SCO Unix => Linux and not independently from "X" => SCO and "X" => Linux independently, that's stretching it.

  98. Re: Consider this by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful


    > > Mensa member, beware of the high IQ

    > Mensa member, beware of the large swollen head and general "I am better than you" attitude.

    Mensa membership apparently doesn't require you to be smart enough to know that you shouldn't brag about your IQ in a forum with ~ half a million readers.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  99. History and Origin is the key by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1
    SCO is claiming that Linux kernel code came from their kernel, that is their basis of a charge of theft.

    Showing 80 lines of code only suggests a common origin, it doesn't give any clue as to who stole from who. To do that we need to have good programmers, who understand things like source code control, to go back through the archives and determine when the code appeared in the Linux and SCO kernels. The one that had it first is likely to be the original source, but other checks need to be made, eg: was that code in a BSD or in Minix, ..., at around then ? Is it code that had been available on the net ? Is it code in a manufacturer's device driver and the programmer wrote the SCO and Linux versions ?

    Showing that the code is the same, shows little.

    Unfortunately, the legal stink that is created could do much to worry corporations into not deploying Linux, especially when the next similar case(s) rear their heads. Some companies would love Linux and Free Software to die, now is a good time to stick the knife in before IT director's come to realise that they don't need to waste most of their budget in software licenses.

  100. Re: There's nothing to consider so far. Just noise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that something was found doesn't prove anything. First we must look at the kernel history to see when this file got created and by whom. As someone has already suggested, maybe even an SCO employee submitted the file to the Linux kernel, working under orders from his own company to contribute to Linux. I suggest we get a list of all files with between 75 and 85 lines of code and check their origin.

    Also, one file, 80 lines, come on. This can be replaced in five seconds.

    Yes, SCO may be right. SCO may have a case, and some idiot may have submitted code he doesn't own as his own. But at this point (and so far) they have proven nothing, and the Aberdeen guys should be ashamed of themselves for going forward with their review and statements. Most serious reporters and industry analysts declined to sign the NDA (not only Linux advocates). The NDA is more like a Faustian contract where no reporting is possible except: "yes, we've seen some evidence, and it looks legit."

  101. Ha Ah! by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1
    we finally know what are those 80 lines after the comment:

    /* Never reached code */

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
  102. Defusing the bomb with their own arguments by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    After all, they say that as they don't know that their code was there, releasing the Linux source with the GPL license attached was some kind of trick, and should not be counted. Well, the same here, Linus didn't know that those 80 lines in fact come from a (C) source, use the same excuse as SCO with the GPL, replace this few lines (80 less comments) with code that do what need to do, but developed by someone new that have not seen that part of the linux code yet, and all happy?

  103. Who do *YOU* trust? by dark-br · · Score: 1

    This allegation really underscores a primary issue of closed source software - it's not out for public review, and hence, it would be VERY difficult to validate these claims. For all we know, SCO's code is a rip-off of Linux or some prior open-source code that Linux was a beneficiary of. SCO never published their source and there's nothing outside of SCO (or maybe IBM, if there was some kind of agreement) to validate the claims. The trouble is, we can trust neither of those parties to present untainted copies of the relevant code as both could have altered timestamps or copied in code. There's also the fact that some processes in software can just really be done in one optimum way.

    This is a good reason software should not be considered "published", hence copyrightable, unless the source code exists in some human-readable means in some organization outside of the "software publisher" (who truly publishes nothing), a place the courts could seriously look at as proof of the existance.

    A way that might serve as a valid stopgap would be the generation of an MD5 hash of each source file and submitting that to some trusted agency (Library of congress?) for another digital signature and timestamp to be added, proving the date of creation to some legal standard so that these allegations could be backed with proof. We'd know the plaintext was validly signed by the LOC and that it existed at the time alleged to.

  104. Don't forget the NDA by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Remember that Claybrook, and any other independent analysts that comment on the code comparison, signed that infamous NDA we've all come to know and hate. SCO can pick and choose which lines to show the analysts, ones that bolster their case. They could very well be hiding lines that prove otherwise. Since they are the plaintiff, the burden of proof is on SCO.

    However, everyone has been taking the "80 lines" thing wrong. Even the article states that SCO showed "blocks of code, some up to 80 lines in length", not just "80 lines".

    That said, I still say look closely at any IBM-submitted patches and consider their possible relation to past IBM-SCO projects, because a contract dispute between IBM and SCO seems to be the basis of the legal case. Ignore the media game; SCO can be broken and humiliated if it turns out their court case is nothing but sour grapes and whining.

    --

    Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
  105. M$ own rights to some of SCO's openserver software by tintin12 · · Score: 1

    It seems that M$ have som interest in helping fund the SCO lawsuit against IBM, see : http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1997/Nov9 7/scopr.asp

  106. Theft is fheft.. but.. by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But does 80 lines of code warrant holding the entire OS community for ransom? ( you know they would not stop with UNIX, and head to Microsoft next.. )

    80 lines will be easy to 'fix' for the future, they cant be magic code..

    But that wont stop them from asking for damages due to previous versions of violating software.

    I've always believed SCO had a case, or wouldn't claim it.. BUT it was totally irresponsible to act on the infraction in this manner. A polite letter of 'you have violated, here is what you need to fix' would have been proper. Its not like they have lost a dime over this.. really.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  107. SCO Self Inflicted Wound? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    There is an excellent article by Bob Cringely (of PBS) describing how SCO's Linux team may have added UnixWare and OpenServer code to Linux.

    Check it out at:

    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit2003060 5. html

  108. Drive by shootings? by h00pla · · Score: 2, Interesting
    SCO's actions angered Linux supporters, who allegedly deluged the company with angry e-mails, threatened drive-by shootings, and posted SCO's executives' home phone numbers and addresses on Web sites.

    I have been following the SCO case very closely and I have not heard about threats of 'drive-by shootings'. Can anybody substantiate this? -- point to some links where SCO alleges this or news about this? I think that if EE Times invented this or if SCO invented this, it's pretty outrageous. It's equally outrageous if it really happened, but I would not say that these people are your 'garden variety' Linux enthusiasts.

    --
    I've been swashdotted -- Elmer Fudd
  109. SCO to ask court for all Linux copyrights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not shoot the messenger. Here is advanced warning of what I expect will happen in the next few weeks.

    SCO will ask the court to declare it copyright holder for all of Linux, and overturn GPL license on Linux sources.

    Basis of this argument will be that:

    1. SCO have in the past made key contributions to Linux (there is a list on their site)

    2. All contributors have effectively made their code public domain (or at least shared) by waiving almost all control over distribution, use, patent claims, etc., and all financial interest, in GPLed code.

    3. On the basis of 1 and 2, SCO have as much interest as anybody else in the "public domain" aspects of Linux.

    4. Key sections of Linux are copyrighted SCO code, used illegally, and never authorized to be included in Linux. Consequently SCO is the only party with non "public domain" code in Linux, and should therefore be declared the copyright holder.

    Boies was the original key figure for SCO's law team. He seems to believe the case is about supporting competition between UNIX and Linux, and fighting what he sees as unfair competition (Linux code copying, IBM breaking trade secrets). He probably does not believe SCO's request for Linux copyrights, is consistent with his view of the case, which is why he probably won't be working on this part of the case, and his role is partly downgraded.

  110. wrong by dh003i · · Score: 5, Interesting

    SCO has no leg to stand on here. Even if all of their absurd claims are true, no-one is liable beyond the point at which SCO could have provided them with information to correct the matter. Assuming SCO's right, they could tell IBM and the community exactly what lines of code are identical, and provide real evidence to prove that the code was copies from SCO => Linux. The offending code would then be immediately removed and replaced, ending further continuation of the problem. SCO has not done that, so they cannot collect on any damages past the point at which they could have done such.

    --
    social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
    1. Re:wrong by janda · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To quote:

      Assuming SCO's right, they could tell IBM and the community exactly what lines of code are identical, [...]

      They don't even need to tell the community. They could tell IBM, IBM could re-write the portions, submit it to Linus (he'd probably have to know also), and give it a changelog entry of something like "re-write portions to improve compiler optimizations under gcc 3.0.1 patchlevel 4" or something.

      SCO would only need to do the "having worked with IBM to remove the offending sections" routine, and they could still sue for trade-secret infringement and contract violations.

      --
      Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
    2. Re:wrong by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      and give it a changelog entry of something like "re-write portions to improve compiler optimizations

      That would be a lie. It's dishonest, and potentially some (international) lawyer could cast it as illegal fraud.

      Besides, it wouldn't work. The Linux kernel is a high-profile, widely scrutinized codebase. A message like that would inspire some GCC maintainer to check on exactly how the changes effected optimization- and 10 minutes of work would reveal that they do nothing of the sort.

      A brief comment like "Update documentation and re-factor" would have a better chance of going undiscovered (especially if it turns out that many of SCO's "identical code" is in fact just comments)

    3. Re:wrong by 73939133 · · Score: 1

      no-one is liable beyond the point at which SCO could have provided them with information to correct the matter.

      SCO will take the position that they have provided everybody with the information to correct the matter: "Linux" is infringing, therefore you should stop using Linux.

      They are approaching this like they would approach copyright and contractual violations by a single big company like, say, Sun. For a lawsuit against a company like that, their behavior makes sense: the entire product would be at risk, violations would be determined by a third party expert under NDA, etc.

      What they are missing is that Linux is not like Solaris. Linux is a loose aggregation of independently developed pieces of software. Even if SCO succeeds in making claims against parts, it would have negligible impact on the whole.

      Basically, SCO's legal strategy is as outdated as their software.

    4. Re:wrong by dh003i · · Score: 1

      SCO will take the position that they have provided everybody with the information to correct the matter: "Linux" is infringing, therefore you should stop using Linux.

      Even disconsidering what you said later on, which negates that argument, it still has no merit:

      (1) SCO's word, without any solid evidence, isn't good enough for anyone to stop using anything. Until the court rules it's infringing, it isn't.

      (2) Also ignores the fact that Linux the kernel is very modular.

      --
      social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
  111. If you read the article carefully... by leonbrooks · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...all they are claiming is that they have 80 lines that contain code and identical comments. They have not stated that the code itself is identical.

    This brings us back to a common coding practice: dumping the code and rewriting your own code underneath the comments. Still no data.

    IMESHO the NDA is safe to sign because The SCO Group are about to become a memory, a bad dream.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:If you read the article carefully... by llywrch · · Score: 1

      > IMESHO the NDA is safe to sign because The SCO Group are about to become a memory, a bad dream.

      Maybe, but I wouldn't bank on it. Consider the following conversation:

      SCO Flunky: Boss, we've got $16.28 in the corporate bank account, & paychecks are going out Friday.

      McBride: Damn, I should've not taken that cruse in the Carrabean & billed it to the company! Aw well, what do we have that we can sell quickly for cash?

      SF: Microsoft has a standing offer of $15 million for our rights to the UNIX code.

      McBride: Naw, if we sell them that, it's the end of our business, & we might as well kiss that billion we're suing IBM for good-bye. I'll get heck from the Canopy group for doing that.

      SF: Thrillbert has raised his buy-out offer for the SCO Group to $61.-- & the complete DVD collection of ``Star Trek: the Next Generation".

      McBride: Nope, that won't make the nut either.

      SF: Hmm. What if we sell a number of potential outstanding NDA violations to another company for a few hundred thousand dollars. That'll pay the salaries of the remaining employees: you, me & that cute blonde you claim is just your personal secretary.

      McBride: How about this -- what if we sell a number of potential outstanding NDA violations to another company for a few hundred thousand dollars. That'll pay the salaries of the remaining employees: you, me & that cute blonde who is just my personal secretary.

      SF: But that's what I just suggested!

      McBride: Silly rabbit! (punches SF in the arm) Haven't you figured out yet that CEO's always take credit for every good idea?

      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
  112. Keep your eye on the real game here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It is possible, but IMHO unlikely that SCO intend to get IBM to buy them out. The real game has nothing to do with 80 lines of code, and everything to do with any possible excuse to drag Linux through the mud and tell IBM's corporate customers: "this 'amazing' product is full of danger". And exactly one company has the motive, the means, and with SCO, the opportunity. /. should be reacting with suitable paranoia here and look to the traditional villain of the peace, namely Microsoft, who is behind this whole plot.


    There is no point in even taking SCO's claims seriously, nor in dignifying them with a response. SCO does not have to prove anything, any more than Bush had to prove Sadam's weapons before invading Iraq. So long as one judge believes there is a case to answer, the game is on.


    If I was a fly inside IBM, I'd be interested to see whether the Linux lobby was getting top level support on this or not.

  113. A real perler by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    If it was 80 lines of PERL, how could a layman decide that it was code, and not line noise?

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:A real perler by sig+cop · · Score: 0

      #!/bin/perl

      # this program assesses the hilarity content of
      # slashdot posts - reads from stdin or arguments

      $moron_detected = 0;

      while ($inputline = <>)
      {
      if ($inputline =~ /leonbrooks/)
      {
      $moron_detected = 1;
      last;
      }
      }

      if ($moron_detected)
      {
      print "warning: post by or concerning 'leonbrooks' detected - post is probably not funny\n";
      }
      else
      {
      print "possibly funny post detected\n";
      }

    2. Re:A real perler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Here's how a real perl programmer would do it:
      while (<>) {
      if (/leonbrooks|sig_cop/) {
      print "warning: fag alert\n";
      $fag = 1;
      last;
      }
      }
      print "post may not be by a loser" unless ($fag);
    3. Re:A real perler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, a *REAL* perl hacker would've written it like:

      # Need to make sure no-one ever reads this code
      $%&(N ()$#(&$*#)$#:;;53a(%&*()$&4634765

    4. Re:A real perler by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

      @P=split//,".URRUU\c8R";@d=split//,"\nrekcah xinU / lreP rehtona tsuJ";sub p{
      @p{"r$p","u$p"}=(P,P);pipe"r$p","u$p";++$p;($q *=2) +=$f=!fork;map{$P=$P[$f^ord
      ($p{$_})&6];$p{$_}=/ ^$P/ix?$P:close$_}keys%p}p;p;p;p;p;map{$p{$_}=~/^[ P.]/&&
      close$_}%p;wait until$?;map{/^r/&&}%p;$_=$d[$q];sleep rand(2)if/\S/;print

      --
      Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    5. Re:A real perler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you post that because you don't understand it? What a loser.

    6. Re:A real perler by sig+cop · · Score: 0
      Hate a language because of bad ways it can be used? You must hate C, too. It's possible to write crap in just about any language. If it's not possible, the language is probably broken from expressiveness and flexibility perspectives.

  114. Kernel LOCs by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    Totals for 2.4.18 debian woody:
    Grand total all directories: 3,704,994 (0.0022%)
    Total in kernel directory only: 14,058 (0.57%)

    So if they're talking specifically of the kernel directory, and if the 80 lines shown are all there are, they're claiming that their decline from $200+ million per year to $60 million per year is entirely due to about one half of one percent of the code.

    Off Topic: anyone know a better way than the following to handle large numbers of arguments?

    bob@swirl:/usr/local/src/kernel/kernel-source-2. 4. 18$ find * -type f -name '*\.[ch]' | wc
    8293 8293 221144
    bob@swirl:/usr/local/src/kernel/kernel-sou rce-2.4. 18$ wc `find * -type f -name '*\.[ch]' | head -1000` | grep total
    324215 1061875 8471017 total
    bob@swirl:/usr/local/src/kernel/kernel-sour ce-2.4. 18$ wc `find * -type f -name '*\.[ch]' | head -2000 | tail -1000` | grep total
    551027 1776771 15043435 total
    bob@swirl:/usr/local/src/kernel/kernel-sour ce-2.4. 18$ wc `find * -type f -name '*\.[ch]' | head -3000 | tail -1000` | grep total
    631425 2131416 18512146 total
    bob@swirl:/usr/local/src/kernel/kernel-sour ce-2.4. 18$ wc `find * -type f -name '*\.[ch]' | head -4000 | tail -1000` | grep total
    965346 3486333 29067291 total
    bob@swirl:/usr/local/src/kernel/kernel-sour ce-2.4. 18$ wc `find * -type f -name '*\.[ch]' | head -5000 | tail -1000` | grep total
    581813 2316216 18338130 total
    bob@swirl:/usr/local/src/kernel/kernel-sour ce-2.4. 18$ wc `find * -type f -name '*\.[ch]' | head -6000 | tail -1000` | grep total
    134261 511247 4140371 total
    bob@swirl:/usr/local/src/kernel/kernel-sour ce-2.4. 18$ wc `find * -type f -name '*\.[ch]' | head -7000 | tail -1000` | grep total
    122814 502081 3903002 total
    bob@swirl:/usr/local/src/kernel/kernel-sour ce-2.4. 18$ wc `find * -type f -name '*\.[ch]' | head -8000 | tail -1000` | grep total
    222183 806751 6445312 total
    bob@swirl:/usr/local/src/kernel/kernel-sour ce-2.4. 18$ wc `find * -type f -name '*\.[ch]' | tail -293` | grep total
    171910 516407 4303860 total
    bob@swirl:/usr/local/src/kernel/kernel-sour ce-2.4. 18$ cd kernel/
    bob@swirl:/usr/local/src/kernel/kernel-so urce-2.4. 18/kernel$ wc `find * -type f -name '*\.[ch]'` | grep total
    14058 43823 343800 total

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    1. Re:Kernel LOCs by Dave9876 · · Score: 1

      Why not just: $ cd /usr/src/linux $ find . -name '*.[ch]' | xargs cat | wc -l

    2. Re:Kernel LOCs by Dave9876 · · Score: 1

      Grrr, should have used preview..... Just read it with a new line before each '$'.

    3. Re:Kernel LOCs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $ cd /usr/src/linux
      $ (for i in $(find * -type f -name '*\.[ch]'); do cat $i; done) |wc -l

      (take care of the parenthesis!)
      It takes a bit, of course...

  115. bzzt! wrong! insert quarter and try again! by dh003i · · Score: 1

    The quantity of infringing code does not matter for the actual judgement of whether or not it's infringing. It does, however, matter for the damages, as does the quality. Even if those 80 lines of code are very important, they're still insignificant. The community could easily code for and replace any code for any function. Alternatively, they could be generic lines of code that are almost the mandatory solution for the required problem, in which case damage is nill. (btw, do these "lines" include several lines of white-space, comments, and other non-code?) If all they've got is 80 lines of code, then there's no way they're going to be rewarded significant damages.

    And of course, it's 99.99% probable that SCO in fact stole the code from the Linux community, not vica-versa. Not only that, but they released everything under the GPL by distributing a GNU/Linux distribution.

    --
    social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
  116. Heritage of that code? by Catiline · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Personally, I question the origins and heritage of those 80 lines. There are three ways that Linux and SCO UnixWare[1] software might contain identical code:
    1. Linux steals code from SCO. (This is what SCO is claiming -- theft of IP via IBM's developers.)
    2. Linux gives code to SCO. (In my mind a likely possibility, given that SCO-- once Caldera Linux-- sold a Linux distrobution.)
    3. Linux and SCO both borrow the same code from a third, public doman or BSD-style licensed source.

    Personally, I place the first option as the least possible for two reasons: first, that I doubt any decently-skilled programmer would believe that (improperly donated) proprientary code would remain undetected in a open source program. (The "many eyes" principle doesn't make just bugs shallow!) Secondly, SCO "damning evidence" chart of UNIX history shows two arrows going FROM Linux to UnixWare around August 2000 (on either side of UnixWare 7.1.1+LKP), one coming from the Linux 2.2 branch and the other from the Linux 2.4 branch. This chart also shows one (and only one) arrow leading into Linux ... from BSD 4.4 around the end of 1994 (Linux 1.1.52).

    I'm laughing my head of at this whole brouhaha. SCO can't keep their story straight (one day it's trade secrets, then copyright, then patents, then ...) nor can they even lie convincingly on their webpage. Somebody please start a class action lawsuit positing fraud against these folks.

    [1: Even without seeing an exact statement from SCO about what part of their proprietary code is in question, I know it must be in UnixWare and not OpenServer because they complain IBM violated their IP with Monterrey ... and the arrow on the history chart to Monterrey leads from UnixWare.]
    --
    Do you like Japanese imports?
    1. Re:Heritage of that code? by Anonymous+Cowhead · · Score: 1

      So even though you only list three options for the orgin of the code, your subsequent paragraph adds a fourth, even more likely possibility:

      4. SCO's code comes directly from Linux.

    2. Re:Heritage of that code? by dbc · · Score: 1

      My money has been on number 3 from the beginning.

  117. Are things really that bad? by sbaker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If there are indeed 80 contiguous lines of near identical code with identical comments - then I think we have to accept that the UNIX and Linux code came from the same place. That's too much to have come about by chance or parallel evolution. However, that doesn't make it an open-and-shut case for SCO:

    1) Did the code indeed come from UNIX to Linux and not from some other common source such as BSD - or from Linux to UNIX. Given the lack of version control in early versions of UNIX, it's going to be hard to show *where* it came from.

    2) Where is this code? If it's in the heart of the kernel then that's one thing - but if it's in some obscure utility or in a device driver, then it's quite possible that hardly anyone is using this code anyway.

    3) You can bet that within an hour of SCO revealing the location of this code, there will be a replacement for it out there. So they'd only be able to claim royalties for past use...not off into the future.

    4) Novell claim to own the copyrights and patents to UNIX. If that's true - then who cares about SCO's claims? Now, if Novell were to sue - that would be a completely different matter.

    5) It's hard to see how SCO could claim to have been materially damaged by this. It's pretty darned obvious that if the Linux community had not had access to those 80 lines, we'd have written them ourselves...it's not like "Oh no, we don't know how to write that function - so we'll have to steal it from UNIX."
    Linux's and SCO's sales would not have been different in the slightest whether that code was copied or written from scratch.

    We *NEED* more facts. What file and what range of line numbers are we talking about here? Why are SCO keeping that so secret?

    --
    www.sjbaker.org
    1. Re:Are things really that bad? by mark-t · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You can bet that within an hour of SCO revealing the location of this code, there will be a replacement for it out there.
      The terms SCO want imposed on their code are wholeheartedly incompatible with the terms of the GPL, so their code *HAS* to be removed.
      It's hard to see how SCO could claim to have been materially damaged by this.
      They weren't. They're a dying company targetting a big one in the hopes of being bailed out before they go completely bankrupt.

      What I don't get is that they say they're not out to destroy Linux, yet prolonging the mystery of where the code is does nothing but further damage to the reputation of Linux and its developers. SCO must have a different definition of "destroy" than most of us.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    2. Re:Are things really that bad? by isorox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1) Did the code indeed come from UNIX to Linux and not from some other common source such as BSD - or from Linux to UNIX. Given the lack of version control in early versions of UNIX, it's going to be hard to show *where* it came from.

      What if it went from UNIX to BSD to Linux. Obviously the first jump is copyright infringment, but if it goes BSD -> Linux, thats fine according to the BSD license. Would it be the same as buying stolen property? Would you just have to give it back (remove the offending lines)?

  118. Stolen comments revealed by cardshark2001 · · Score: 1
    //How did this EVER work? I'll fix it later

    //What was this guy smoking? I want some! I'll fix this later.

    //I'm too tired to do this the right way. I'll fix it later

    //Hack

    //Another hack

    //Yet another hack

    --
    WWJD? JWRTFA!
  119. Damages vs. Claims by Cylix · · Score: 4, Insightful


    So far they are claiming that Linux sales are hurting SCO sales. That is where the inflated 1 Billion dollar suite originates from. Loss of sales, not just royalties.

    It would seem to me, they would have to demonstrate A LOT of code was stolen in critical areas to show the Linux kernel really couldn't do well without their code.

    Of course, that is of course determining this is their code to begin with. Then determining where the actual code came from.

    It isn't just about proving code was indeed stolen, its about proving enough code was stolen to really shake up SCO sales. Then how much sales is really attributed to performance. Microsoft has proven that making the sale isn't just about code worthiness. (Probably a bad example using a monopoly, but other companies make the sale without perfect software)

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
  120. Considering that Linux is OS and SCO Unix is not by Vertex+Operator · · Score: 1


    I'd say it's far more like that some overworked
    SCO Unix coding monkey stole some code from
    Linux than the other way around. What would be
    the point of stealing such a miniscule amount
    of code? If it's only 80 lines it can't be
    anything critical or extraordinarily clever.
    Two operating systems coded in the same language
    will of course have lines of code that are
    identical, or nearly identical. They have to
    perform many of the same functions, and function
    dictates form.

    --
    San Diego Padres, 100 Park Blvd, San Diego CA 92101

    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by
  121. 80 lines lets see? by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 2, Interesting

    80 lines is less than what one thousandth of percent of any unix like kernel..

    sounds more liek SCO GFroup during the partnering with IBM on a project accidently copied their own code to Linux..:)

    What ever happen to McBride's claim of thousands of lines of code?

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
  122. OK, but quit jumping through SCO's hoops by argoff · · Score: 1

    Why are all talking about who coppied who's code. The real issue isn't about code, but about the morality of copyrights to begin with. It reminds me of St. Thomas Moore, who refused to state what religion he was - so they put on a big trial to proove that he didn't support the Kings religion. While everybody was debating about what religion he really believed - they should have been debating about wether it was OK for King to execute someone for their religious beliefs.

    The same is true with copyrights. They are not valid, they are unethical, and they ruin peoples lives - yet nobody wants to dare challenge them openly because it seems to radical too risky. Sheesh, freedom of religion is radical - instead of worying about being radical, lets worry about being right.

    1. Re:OK, but quit jumping through SCO's hoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh do shut up.

      There's nothing immoral about expecting a regime to exist where you can offer to create something in exchange for people who make use of what you create paying you for it.

      Most people, outside of Slashdot - hell, most people on Slashdot - accept the legitimacy of that. That's why it's not being debated.

      Now, shut up, close your browser, and continue downloading porn via Kazaa.

    2. Re:OK, but quit jumping through SCO's hoops by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      I find your post intriguing, and I'd say I agree with it for the most part, but would you say that copyright is COMPLETELY immoral? I mean, certainly there is something immoral about 150 year copyrights, but would you call a 10 year copyright immoral? I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that.

    3. Re:OK, but quit jumping through SCO's hoops by argoff · · Score: 1

      There's nothing immoral about expecting a regime to exist where you can offer to create something in exchange for people who make use of what you create paying you for it.

      You're right. There's nothing wrong with that, I get paid every day to do that. Copyrights are not such a regime though - first, I have no problem paying a creator to create something, I have a problem with a monopoly imposed on copying after the fact. Second, copyrights do not help creators, for every creator they help there are thousnads that they restrict and harm.

    4. Re:OK, but quit jumping through SCO's hoops by argoff · · Score: 1

      25 years ago when the biggest issue with copyrights was xerox machines - it was probably bearable. But in the information age, information is so easy to copy and manipulate that there can't be a middle ground. You either half to controll all of it or none of it. Hollywood knows this, SCO probably does too, and so should we.

    5. Re:OK, but quit jumping through SCO's hoops by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      But is there a viable method of compensation for artists with no copyright?

      Let me be clear. I don't think that artists make art or whatever it is they make, with the goal of compensation in mind. But the idea of copyright, imo, is to allow artists to make art, without forcing them to take a dayjob, so they can devote themselves full-time to art. So how will anyone make a profit without copyright at all?

      I want to believe what you're saying, but I'm just not convinced that absolutely no copyright can work completely.

    6. Re:OK, but quit jumping through SCO's hoops by argoff · · Score: 1

      I don't really know either how the outcome would be for artists or creations that will be brought to society, but I do know that copyrights don't help artists, and they especially don't help small artists. For everyone that makes it big, there are hidden thousands that copyrights don't help a bit and even squish like a bug. For chrissake, even church choiros are restricted in their venues. Many artists are even forbidden from using their own creations in public, other ones are royaltied out of existence. If an artist looses a govt backed monopoly over copying their works but in the process gains free use of a zillion other works, I suspect that most that care about art would consider that a net gain. Those that most care about money .... well? I also know that copyrights tend to skew the kind of art that we have in society, it tends to put great value on art and creations that get the most hype at the expense of creations that tend to be connected to value and service. IMHO that paradigm might prop up big media companies, but it tends to leave artists in the dust.

    7. Re:OK, but quit jumping through SCO's hoops by argoff · · Score: 1

      BTW, one more thing. I really understand where you're comeing from. I used to believe in copyrights so strongly, and took me 7 years worth of thinking about it, and questioning myself, and experiencing crap in the software industry, and seeing first hand how they could take perfictly productive orginisations and turn them into dirt before I concluded that copyrights are crap, they are not free market, they do not help creators, and society could do without them. Just think about it, that's all I ask.

      If there is one thing we should learn from this SCO suit, it's that for both sides this is an all or nothing game. IMHO, copyrights are like the slavery of the information age, they are a form of controll that just won't work anymore. Dont be like those who thought that the free states could get along with the slave states.

    8. Re:OK, but quit jumping through SCO's hoops by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      I used to believe in copyrights so strongly, and took me 7 years worth of thinking about it, and questioning myself...before I concluded that copyrights are crap

      Don't get me wrong: I really am strongly opposed to copyright. My friends all know me as being obsessed with the topic. It's not like I'm your average joe who thinks we need copyright. I've also spent a long time thinking (and reading) about copyright (though perhaps not 7 years). But I'm not convinced that we need NO copyrights. I'm not even disagreeing with you. But before I posted a reply to you, I was of the opinion that 10 - 14 year copyright might be best. Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm just not convinced either way. Go ahead tho, try to convince me ;)

    9. Re:OK, but quit jumping through SCO's hoops by argoff · · Score: 1

      hmmm,
      ok how about this...

      a copyright in it's 2nd year or it's 100th year has to be backed up by the full force of the US govt. I could see using that force with physical property where one persons posession of property autimatically limits and deprives another, but for a song?

      The government can't tell people that they have this right to restrict copying, and then never enforce it. So that begs the question, how far are we willing to push it when people refuse to cooperate. Are going to bankrupt them, toss them in jail, shoot them depending on how hard they resist.

      I do think that reducing copyright terms would greatly reduce the harm caused by copyrights, and reducing it enough might even make them bearable again for awhile, but I don't really think at this point it could ever be 14 years. In the eyes of the copyright "lords" it is an all or nothing game, in they eyes of the victims it is too - never give them another seed to nickle and dime our rights away with again.

    10. Re:OK, but quit jumping through SCO's hoops by peter · · Score: 1

      > Second, copyrights do not help creators, for every creator they help there are thousnads that they restrict and harm.

      That's a weak argument. Copyright helps the few good creators that everybody wants to copy. Without copyright, there would be floods of bad e.g. Star Wars books, because so many people want to write about it. (heh, bad example. There are currently floods of bad SW books...) OTOH, it's not that bad as long as people have some mechanism for separating the wheat from the chaff, such as book reviews. Having more drek out there makes people more dependent on book reviewers to tell them what is good. There is certainly a case to be made for not preventing people from creating what they want, because the good stuff will win on its own merits anyway.

      One thing copyrights do is protect a creator's work from being used in ways they don't like. It's not just about money: Some musicians wouldn't let McDonalds use their song in an add for any amount of money. Similarly, other musicians wouldn't let George Bush use their music in an election campaign. It's about rights other than property rights. This obviously applies to paintings, writings, and so on.

      Copyrights these days are really screwed up, esp. since they seem to be growing fast enough to starve the public domain indefinitely, but the principle behind them makes some sense. For functional creations like software, it might be more beneficial to not give copyright on code. (I would be happy to buy a game, and know that I was paying for the artwork and other non-executable information, and that the source and binaries were on the CD in the retail box.)

      --
      #define X(x,y) x##y
      Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes , .ca)
  123. Question on Linux source code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not a programmer but a supporter of Linux. I have a question. Does each piece of code that is included in a distribution (say RH) have to be certified by the coder as their own original work, or is it just assumed that it is the submitting programmer's own work?

    The reason I am asking this is because I think there may be a simple solution. We, as a community, can ask all contributors to certify (effective back-dated) that the pieces that they submitted were their own. The pieces that do not get certified like this will have to be re-written; no doubt about that, but at least it will make the our beloved Linux much less vulnerable to these kinds of things in the future. Obviously this is a humongous task but won't this make the whole problem go away?

  124. pointless secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's pointless for SCO to refuse to show the code. In order to fix the problem, and the courts would allow that, the developers need to see the offending code. Even if the court forces them to sign an NDA (difficult considering developers are worldwide), all we need to do is diff the new source and the old source to see what the court decided belonged to SCO.

    The court probably won't force an NDA, since in general trade secrets are not protected by law. Reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that the secret is not stolen, for example, by breaking in. Otherwise, to be protected, the SOURCE CODE needs to be copyrighted.

    In my opinion, and IANAL, the copyright that most software is protected by only protects the compiled program, not the source. SCO's source code, Microsoft's source code, etc., are trade secrets. GNU software source code is copyrighted.

  125. The 80 Lines SCO Doesn't Want You To See by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SCO wouldn't let me publish all 80 of the lines, but here are the first few:

    int main (int argc, char **argc) { /* Begin Program */
    RunKernel(); // Run the Kernel
    return(1);
    }

    You're probably wondering about those "similar comments", too. Here they are: /*
    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
    Version 2, June 1991

    Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
    59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
    Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
    of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

    Preamble

    The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
    freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
    License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
    software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
    General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
    Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
    using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
    the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
    your programs, too.

    When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
    price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
    have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
    this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
    if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
    in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

    To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
    anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
    These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
    distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

    For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
    gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
    you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
    source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
    rights.

    We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
    (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
    distribute and/or modify the software.

    Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
    that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
    software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
    want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
    that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
    authors' reputations.

    Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
    patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
    program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
    program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
    patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

    The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
    modification follow.

    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
    TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

    0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
    a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
    under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
    refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
    means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
    that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
    either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
    language. (Hereinafter, translation is

  126. By the way.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone ever happen to notice this?

  127. Print this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm wonder if I can copywrite the print statement?

    This is simply another case of a company trying to say they own AIR and everyone should pay them for breathing it.

  128. ...Or this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    link to Netcraft.

  129. Usual rules for receipt of stolen property? by cait56 · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm missing something here.

    Under basic common law, you are not responsible for having taken receipt of stolen property unless you knew or should have known it was stolen.

    I am not certain that the "Linux Community" is capable of being "aware" of anything. I certainly do not know how you would prove it. And the general skeptical reaction to SCO's claims would strongly indicate that the Linux Community does not consider the Linux code to be a common repository for stolen code.

    The common law procedure to follow when you determine someone is the innocent recepient of property that was stolen from you is to ask for its return.

    Etiquette sugests that this be done politely. But I do not believe that is a legal requirement. Instead you provide proof of ownership, and under most cases the receient is obligated to return the stolen property.

    I am certain that 80 lines of Linux code could be replaced in less than 80 minutes. I don't know which code is involved, but in all likelihood it is a simple algorithm that is implemented in similar ways in many Unix variants.

    Even if SCO is the legitimate owner of those lines of code, what they are doing would be the equivalent of an author who found out that another other had submitted their story to an anthology sending letters to everyone who bought the book demanding that they pay the real author more money that they had paid for the book in the first place.

  130. Here's a leaked list of the common comments SCO/LI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wirzenius wrote this portably, Torvalds fucked it up :-)
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    There's no way this can work but there's no way I'm going to fix it.
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    This is all fucked up but Knuth says it's okay
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    Dedicated to Wannes, Tofke, Ykke, Godot, Killroy and all those
    other lovely fish out there...
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    No luck !
    Give a kick in the ass of ppp_generic so that he sends us some data
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    are we broadcasting this damn thing?
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    Written By: Keith Mitchell, IBM Corporation
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    stupid rfc2402
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    This is fucking braindead. There is NO WAY of doing this without the CONFIG_SYSCTL unless you don't want to detect errors.
    Grrr... -RR
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    Plain luck! Hole if filled with delayed packet, rather than with a retransmit.
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    Parse and mangle SNMP message according to mapping.
    (And this is the fucking 'basic' method).
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    At the moment we use the stupid Acorn scheme of Econet address y.x maps to IP a.b.c.x. This should be replaced with something more flexible and more aware of subnet masks.
    We can count ourselves lucky Acorn machines are too dim to speak IPv6. :-)
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    Pointopoint link receives a hello message
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    unlucky bastard
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    James M doesn't say fuck enough.
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    No luck in the egress cache we must open an ingress SVC
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    Values for info field in hello message
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    stupid old code wastes space
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    Ugly, ugly fucker.
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    stupid bsd-ism
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    If you fuck with this, update ret_from_syscall code too.
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    Oh geese, some other nitwit got a damn watchdog reset. The party's over so go call prom_stopcpu().
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    Siginfo, sucker expects bunch of information on those parameters
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    For moronic filesystems that do not allow holes in file. We may have to extend the file.
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    "no luck"
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    Need to clean after the sucker
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    a damn Win95 bug - sometimes it clags if you ask it too fast
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    Truly stupid things do sometimes happen.
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    GEMDOS is less stupid and has no reserved names
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    Oh shit. We really ought to make a single node which can do both atomically
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    Deadlocks suck.
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    ?? do not understand... but it works... !!
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    Checking vendor/product should be enough, but what the hell
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    Free buffers and shit
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    No luck yet
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    great day! this function is ugly as hell.
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    lets hand out reasonable big ass buffers by default
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    Target did something stupid. Nice try sucker...
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    shit
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    screen is 80 columns wide, damnit!
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
    bullshit
    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo x

  131. I made money with SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been recently short selling SCO stock and I made $2800 this week from that- so what I did is I gave money to debian, bought a nice monitor from IBM and am going to spend the rest on donating to open source projects

  132. I think you'd have to write... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...about 3 lines a day. Bugger, I drank some coffee and bankrupted the USA.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  133. The problem of commets... by wilddur · · Score: 1

    Is that they do not affect compilation. So it is REALLY difficult to prove that they weren`t included or altered later to make the case more solid. If we take out comments what would remain of the 80 lines.

  134. Which version of Linux ? by Macka · · Score: 1


    To date, all the articles I've seen paint Linux with a broad brush. Which version of Linux are SCO referring to? Conceivably the code could be old, or have been ripped out in the 2.5.x stream during the re-write process.

    Another point to note. In a previous statement from SCO, they also intimated that Mac OS X may be on their radar too. If that's true then considering Mac OS X's BSD roots, it strikes me that any code common to both is more likely to have come from a BSD source. In which case, SCO are skating on thin air!

    Macka

  135. ...and bounced... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    It's possible that IBM's contributions were submitted en masse to Linus and company.

    Linus is not fond of big blocks of code and flat-out refuses multi-purpose integrated patch sets.

    Also, an awful lot of IBM innovations have so far been refused a place in the kernel, despite being useful and competent, because the competing system(s) was/were usefuller and/or competenter.

    Since SCO seem to be manifestly incompetent, it goes without syaing that any of their UnixWare code would have been rejected out of hand.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  136. The world's oldest profession by rifftide · · Score: 2, Informative
    .. is IT market research.

    Aberdeen, and "open source expert" Bill Claybrook in particular, have issued nothing but nasty reports about Linux and its supposedly inferior security, high TCO, and low market penetration for the past several years. They've been doing a similar bag job on Sun. This article explains why.

    With friends like Mr. Claybrook, who needs SCO?

  137. From Bicycle to Cadillac . . . by Beatnick · · Score: 2, Interesting

    . . . in 80 lines???

    Must be some killer lines.

  138. This is rediculous by Binary+Productions · · Score: 1

    Lets suppose that I own Company X. Now lets suppose that times are hard and I need some money. What would be a really simple way to acquire that money? By reading through an open solution to the solution that I charge for... and further "claim" that their code copied mine. It would be very simple to do so because the open code is freely available for me to say was copied and all of my code would be hidden away on my HD for you to have little idea whether or not the code was taken from there. Thats the first huge problem with this lawsuit.

    Lets hit the second one up. Suppose that linux does contain a so called 80 lines of copied code. 80 lines is very little. In what world does 80 lines become a trade secret (excluding of course, asking any perl programmers, for they could write an OS in 80 [extreamly anoying] lines of code).

    This whole thing is stupid. Most apps have more than 80 lines of code simply for going through all their command line options. Perhaps if the number was 80k, I would deeply understand. But this is just rediculous, and hopefully the courts will see so also.

    1. Re:This is rediculous by janda · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To quote...

      In what world does 80 lines become a trade secret [...]

      If those 80 lines of code allow you to sort information faster then your competetors, immediately.

      --
      Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
  139. Positive side of things... by Rotting · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this will finally bring about the end of the idiotic "BSD is dead" posts around here. ;)

    1. Re:Positive side of things... by arose · · Score: 1

      BSD is death and is beeing groked by it's brother Linux (:

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  140. And lastly.. by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    It would have to be enough code of significant enough function to constitute copyright violation.

    Although any transfer of code might be a breach of their contract with IBM, to claim copyright violation because of one line of code, for instance, is generally not going to work.

    80 lines of code... again, it would depend what the code does, what it was originally based on, etc.
    Regarding the GPL.. your point is valid, but let's reword your last statement. The GPL does not require you to transfer full license to patents, trade secrets, and copyrights.
    Patents: Yes, it's implicit that if you have patents, you are granting royaltee free access to your patents under the GPL work.
    Copyright: No, you are not assigning full license under copyright, only under the terms of the GPL. If you had full license, you could redidstribute under any license you want.
    Trade Secret: These aern't like the others, and they aren't soemthign you register. You keep them secret. The act of publishing your own trade secret makes it not a secret anymore. The only way to protect trade secrets is by strict NDAs and strict control over who gets to learn them. So saying GPL requires assignment if trade secret is moot.

    1. Re:And lastly.. by scsirob · · Score: 1

      Would a section of 80 lines fall under the rules of quoting from original work??

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
  141. IBM came around our shop asking if we run Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IBM has already come by and asked us how many Linux servers we run. They even instructed us to shut them down.

    They were really scared. There is some truth to this. You could see it in their eyes.

    You don't go around your clients shop and give advice to shut down servers, if there was not a good reason.

    What are the legal issues for clients that complete business with IBM. If they put the code in the Linux kernel?

    Is there an effect to the clients of IBM?

    1. Re:IBM came around our shop asking if we run Linux by wilddur · · Score: 1

      Cowards....

    2. Re:IBM came around our shop asking if we run Linux by !Squalus · · Score: 1

      An Anonymous Coward wrote:" IBM has already come by and asked us how many Linux servers we run. They even instructed us to shut them down. They were really scared."

      Yeah, and my dog Pete came along and said that the Utah bound dogs were about to revolt, that idiot SCO employee post was the last straw.

      Seems they really don't even want to be seen anywhere near such men. Man's best friend yes, but belong to a SCO exec? That's just too much.

      They planned on leaving a little poo behind for the SCO execs to step in - after all, that's what their owners have been doing to the whole community for so long.

      They say they are headed to Ardmore, Oklahoma. They hear that that town likes the Killer D's and is very friendly too. Maybe they can find some new owners there who believe in freedom and don't attempt to judge the whole world by the way they want to see things.

      --
      All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
  142. Is it code, or data structures? by farrellj · · Score: 1

    And legally, is there a difference between them? I mean, if it is a list of standard includes for example...

    ttyl
    Farrell

    --
    CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
  143. Yeah, there is: by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When you are charging someone with breach of contract and possibly leaking trade secrets, you don't publish the information widely, you have it in sealed court documents.

    Forget that it's SCO for a minute, and pretend it's someone with an honest theft of trade secret case...

    Let's say someone stole the forumla to Coca Cola.. it was available to them under some NDA, but they breached their contract. In this case, you don't ask Coke to make it public so the world can decide if it's the same formula or not.. you seal the documents, have experts look at it, experts BOTH the prosecution and defendant accept as experts, and the case continues.

    What SCO is claiming is not unlike this. Although SCO has threatened the linux world, currently it is IBM who sco has in court, and it's between IBM and SCO to decide what's fair.

    What LinuxTAG did in Germany is a more appropriate response: Have sco stop sending out threatening letters and harming business unless they are going to show us some evidence.

    1. Re:Yeah, there is: by i_am_nitrogen · · Score: 1

      There is a difference: the code is already public. They can't change that fact. What SCO should do is say, "stop distributing lines 30-110 of fork.c as they belong to us." In the case of someone stealing the formula for a cola drink, they wouldn't likely represent it as their own invention. The analogy holds for simple trade secret cases, but there is a lot more background here that needs to be considered.

      --
      A solution to the problem with music today
  144. Re: Consider this by digitalunity · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Mensa membership actually requires very little of you. Mensa only certifies that you are at or above a specific intelligence relative to the average of society. They demand nothing of you as to ethics, posture, or good manners.

    I'm qualified to be a Mensa member; however I'm not so pretentious to think that being a Mensa member would make me a better person. Nor do I think I like any of the Mensa members around me. So, all of you Mensa snobs remember this: there are many around you with far greater intelligence. Do not assume because you are the member of an elitist and snobbish group that you are the best.

    I'll use myself for an example:
    IQ - 151
    Percentile rank: 0.4%
    At 0.4%, roughly 1 out of every 200 persons on average would be more intelligent than myself. Every Mensa member I've ever met walks around believing they are the most intelligent person in the room, at all times.

    --
    You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
  145. Re:What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + G by mce · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Jim Stallings, the general manager of IBM Corp.'s Linux business recently stated: "I believe I am correct in saying there are no violations on any intellectual property issues [with Unix and SCO Group] and we will continue to support our Linux customers. It will be business as usual." Frankly IMO, given the quality of IBM's legal team, SCO don't stand a chance.

    What I'm missing most in this entire mess, is IBM making a series of strong high profile statements that make very clear that (according to them) SCO doesn't stand a chance in court and why this is so. So far, SCO is getting all the publicity (with the one exception of Novell's claim), which is BAD. Repeat after me: "If I repeat my claim/lie often enough, it will become true/truth." SCO is, day after day, hitting the press with claims that are really damaging Linux business and its reputation in decision making circles, irrespective of whether they are true. The /. crowd is no counterweigth to that! And neither is a "business as usual" attitude by IBM.

    --
    Linux user since early January 1992.
  146. Lawyer's Algorithm: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    /* The Lawyer's Algorithm */

    while (someones_assets>0)
    {
    someones_assets+= sue(ridiculous_sum);
    if (someones_assets<=0) break;
    }

    1. Re:Lawyer's Algorithm: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if (someones_assets<=0) break;

      (Score: 0, redundant)

  147. Re: umm this applies to all software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Boss, how do you know MS Windows doesn't contain code cribbed from other sources?"

    "Well, employee, MS promised that it is 100% theirs."

    "Oh okay! And they have all those lawyers, so they must be telling the truth!"

    At least with Open Source you can find violations and FIX THEM.

  148. Re:From the GPL... by PhilTR · · Score: 1
    FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

    (Misappropriation of Trade Secretsâ"Utah Code Ann. Â13-24-1 et seq.)

    105. Plaintiff is the owner of unique know how, concepts, ideas, methodologies, standards, specifications, programming, techniques, UNIX Software Code, object code, architecture, design and schematics that allow UNIX to operate with unmatched extensibility, scalability, reliability and security (hereinafter defined as âoeSCOâ(TM)s Trade Secretsâ). SCOâ(TM)s Trade Secrets provide SCO with an advantage over its competitors.

    This pretty much sums up SCO's strategy in their efforts to corral all vulnerable IP under the rubric of a more or less vague notion of "Unix"

    Their claims are 'very' broad using words like "know how, concepte, ideas..." It seems as if their theory of the case is that everything even remotely similar to Unix is their IP, a derivitave work so to speak, and that everyone using or developing a Unix-like system should pay royalties to them.

    A nice approach if they can pull it off. Given the climate and confusion created by the DMCA, they just might be able to do it.

    This is the greatest draw back of efforts to patent and copyright software. Everyone to a greater or lesser degree is vulnerable to extortion from the closed source sector under the guise of "just wanting to get paid for their 'hard work' ." There should be minimum standards before a work can be copyrighted and patented. Otherwise every line of code becomes a bone of contention.

    Not having to show your whole hand is particularly helpful especially if you can achieve your goals without having to do so.

  149. That's it? by GreatDave · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So we know that the 2.4 kernel has over 3.3 million lines of code. SCO says the copied code consists of 80 lines, comments included.

    In CS class, my first few assignments were about 80 lines of code. And this is stuff like reading a flat file, spitting it out on the screen, writing it to another file...

    Algorithms are just solutions to a problem. Remember your first IQ test? How many solutions were there to the problems there? One or two, maybe a couple more? How many ways can you solve a New York Times crossword puzzle anyway?

    SCO is preying off media dullards who think 80 lines of, say, text in a book is significant. In computer science, 80 lines of code may well consist of two algorithms to solve two problems. And as for the comments being identical, how do we know the comments aren't something like:

    int x; // Counter for allocating files

    Maybe someone who worked on Unixware/AT&T Unix/whatever went to the same CS department at the same university as a Linux hacker and they learned to comment their variables the same way?

    80 lines? Ridiculous. SCO has no case. IBM needs to get some CS professors or other experts on the stand to explain this to the court.

    --
    "I am root. Bow before me." To this I say, "You are root, and you bear the sins of the world upon your shoulders."
    1. Re:That's it? by macemoneta · · Score: 1

      More likely, they both copied it verbatim (cut and paste) from a public source. SCO never explained why it believes it has the rights to the code in question. For all we know, it's a bubble sort copied out of Knuth or equally heady stuff.

      Showing the code to a bunch of journalists insures that it's significance goes unquestioned.

      --

      Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

  150. Re:What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is an interesting thread about copyright on the Yahoo SCOX message board.

  151. Most managers like to make "big decisions". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They do *not* understand technology.
    If they did, they'd be bench engineers.
    They do like to make decisions like
    "lotus notes" vs. "exchange" vs. "sendmail";
    "apple" vs. "linux" vs. "windows";
    "perl" vs. "c" vs. "java" , etc.

    All they have is vague ideas to go on
    and the influence of their marketing friends.
    There are more Windows ads on during the
    golf match on TV than linux ads. Case closed.

    Besides, the "linux crap" smacks of socialism
    and freedom. The average PHB hates that stuff.

    1. Re:Most managers like to make "big decisions". by canadian_right · · Score: 1
      Just like there are good and bad programmers, there are good and bad managers. I've worked for lots of different managers, of varying technical skills, and you know what? Being great at programming does not mean you will make a good manager. Most managers I worked for were good at managing. They would review the technical peoples reports and then decided how much was going to be spent on what. Nine times out of ten that meant doing as the techies reccomended. And nine times out of ten the techie report was based on requirements that came from management. Of course we never got enough time to do all the testing we wanted (I never worked on a project were skipping tests could cause loss of life, in that case testing is not skimped on, eg production and control systems for a dam), and of course requirements always change as the project progresses. And I've worked for non-technical mamagers who are very bright. They would review my design specs and catch things I hadn't thought of, ask for inteligent changes, notice subtle logical errors in processes.

      I don't like working for managers who won't make a decision. Its hard to buy a backup server if the manager won't sign the paper work. Its hard to implement a system enhancement when the manger won't ok OT to take the system down on the weekend.

      I've never worked for a manager that was swayed by TV adds. What they do want is a great big company backing the product for SUPPORT. We once actually got a main-frame terminal emulator selected that was written by one guy, was small fast, and cheap. But after three years they guy moved on to other things and suddenly there was no support. Managers don't like to take that sort of risk. We had to update 3000 workstations with new software. Its this sort of thing that makes managers leary of "free software". Having IBM's backing is a huge plus in the eyes of It managers working for large firms.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
  152. hmmm by canned+polar+bear · · Score: 1

    maybe SCO is hoping that if they don't have to release the code and its location to the public AND the trial is held behind close doors AND they win, that they can charge license fees for all the linux kernels out there since there's no way to remove the offending code under these circumstances without rewriting the kernel from scratch.

    wow, that was a long sentence. plausible?

    1. Re:hmmm by canned+polar+bear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ah seems somebody else posted this theory earlier. i really should read everything first. however one thing i would like to know is if SCO wins in the US how does this affect the rest of the world, specifically europe?

    2. Re:hmmm by Little+Brother · · Score: 1

      IMHO About as much as taking a fish's bicycle away affects the price of tea in china. Except, perhaps, a little less so. Oh, not counting Great Britan, Blair seems to capitulated enough to the USA that GB would probably follow US anywhere.

      --

      Little Brother, watching the watchers

  153. The issue here is contractual - not ethical by Paul_murphy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As I point out in my Linuxworld.com article (the one the editors here have not slashdotted - I wonder if they don't like pro sco opinions?) the issue is whether or not IBM breached the terms of the contract under which they had access to the AT&T code. I believe they did and that SCO will have an easy time proving it - and in that context lets remember that 80 lines will more than suffice for this if, in fact, their provenance can be proven in court.

    On the other hand my belief is that this issue has little or nothing to do with Linux on any platform other than the IBM P, I, and Z series machines using the PowerPC architecture and thus the SMP and memory management code constributed to the AT&T code base by engineers from companies like Sun, NCR, and Motorola. Today's SuSe or Red Hat CVS may include these materials, but since they're only called with respect to compilation for IBM's non intel hardware, I predict a zero real impact on Linux.

    FUD, of course, is another matter and the more people focus on the negative consequences for Linux which would arise if a fundamentally mistaken interpretation of the whole mess were correct, the worse things will get for the Linux community. So lets not help that along by spreading mis-information and conjecture. The facts will sort themselves out reasonably soon - and if I'm right Linux will come out unscathed while, if I'm wrong, delaying the rush to judgement may still help clarify the real issues.

  154. Re:Has anybody considered - a different slant by pVoid · · Score: 2, Interesting
    But so long as noone can check (because of the NDA)

    Have you considered the following: regardless of what was done, the judge's words are final. It doesn't matter if there were to be 10 million linux protesters each with a print out of the code in their hand chanting in front of the court, the judge's words are final. And generally speaking, judges are unimpressed by chanting.

    On another note, have you considered that the fact that nobody knows where this code is is actually a way of keeping it somewhat hidden? As meager an argument that is, it's still an argument.

  155. They are still... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...distributing it as at 00:26+08 on 09Jun2003. Yes, including full kernel source.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:They are still... by EJB · · Score: 1

      Geez. Are they for real?

      How can something ever be a trade secret when they're disseminating it themselves?

      SCO is truly creating whole new levels of reality distortion here. And it's possible that their - certainly not incompetent - lawyers are thinking that a judge would fall for this. That's pretty bad...

      -- .. Ceterum censeo SCO esse delendam ..

  156. Which is why they wont release the code by braddeicide · · Score: 1

    Quote:"It's true you can register a copyright any time, but you can't sue [copyright.gov] for infringement until you have registered and you can't get certain damages for infringement that occured prior to registration

    SCO still wants the infringing code to be in the linux kernel when they do copyright it, then infringments will occur after copyright.

    1. Re:Which is why they wont release the code by mark-t · · Score: 2, Insightful
      SCO still wants the infringing code to be in the linux kernel when they do copyright it, then infringments will occur after copyright.
      Except that NOBODY has any rights to say which code cannot be removed from Linux. It's clearly evident that SCO wants terms on their code that are incompatible with the terms of the GPL (SCO cannot expect to collect license or royalty fees for GPL'd code), so their code must be removed. End of story. If SCO doesn't *want* their code to be removed, then they are choosing to comply with the terms of the GPL.
      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  157. Mod parent up +2 Informative by gearheadsmp · · Score: 1

    blah

  158. Solution Seems Easy. by Hank+Reardon · · Score: 1
    Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but the solution seems easy enough...

    All of the code is in some kind of versioning system like CVS or BitKeeper or whatever is being used. Every check-in is stamped with a user ID as well. Is it not possible to grep through the CVS checkins to see when the offending code was checked in and who it was checked in by?

    From what I understand about the Linux checkin methods, they're not really checked in by the person submitting the patch, but the LKML lists and other development lists are archived and most patches are submitted via e-mail from what I've read on the lists.

    I really suspect that the code in question was checked in or submitted by a Caldera coder at some point...

    --
    There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
  159. Plebian? by leonbrooks · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It would also stand to reason that some plebian coder with access to the SCO source could use it as a basis for 'fixes' to the kernel and submit them through some 2nd or 3rd tier person who might submit a patch rollup to Linus who just merges it in under their name.

    They'd have to be an absolute bloody genius to find code that was portable UnixWare-to-Linux and pleased Linus and all of the lieutenants standing before him.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  160. Ghandi marched to Dhandi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    People used to think it was right and proper to own other people. They even used the bible to justify this behaviour such was their perfidy. Now, instead of thinking they own people, they think they own ideas, just as wrong in a sense. Ghandi demonstrated how wrong this philosophy is in a spectacular way. He marched 240 miles to Dhandi, amazing rhyme that Ghandi marched to Dhandi. Well anyway, the Brits had a tax on salt, and Ghandi wanted to demonstrate how wrong that was by marching to Dhandi and distilling some salt out of the ocean.

    The biggest reason windoze is a pile of crap, is because the way it works is a secret. It would not surprise me to discover, it was designed to be a pile of crap on purpose. Give people a pile of crap and pretend the next pile of crap will be less of a pile of crap. It seems to work as well.


    When I think of the hours of frustration, lost work, I wasted on windoze. Then I think of the friends put off using computers by blue screen desease. Usually they think they have broken it somehow, which results in a fall in confidense. When I think of the hours wasted on the phone, trying to sort somebody out. The whole thing is just a vast and insidious con.


    The idea that you can own an idea, is not that different to the idea that you can own another human being. Ideas are free really, you just have to get used to the idea. Ideas are the ocean we all drink from when we open our minds. The only difference between an alchemist and a chemist is chemists publish their results which benefits everybody.

    Intellectual property is philosophical slavery, a shackle on the collective mind. There are similarities between a holy book and an operating system. Both establish protocols. The slave owners want to keep these protocols a secret knowledge.

  161. Reply: 80 contiguous lines? more/less than .001% ? by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    Well 80 contiguous lines of code ain't much, but the comments match.

    Well 80 contiguous lines of code among millions, but what's the proportional value.

    Well 80+/- contiguous lines of code with comments how many times, but is this the best example of the evidence.

    Oh SCO (pre-Caldera) purchased some rights to code. Did Caldera (post SCO and pre-SCO group) representatives knowingly share the code with the OSS community back years ago? Could SCO Group now demand the return of a gift of code and provide possibly benefits financially from MS or the OSS community?

    Someone screwed up (maybe SCO/Caldera), but proportionally not much, not significantly, little value and loss. Law and Courts in these cases determine damages and make awards if anything is warranted.

    I don't think; So, FOBG and FOSCO as it plays out ....

    OldHawk777

    Reality is a self-induced hallucination

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  162. Profit$ by Etienne+Steward · · Score: 1

    1. Start a company that makes shitty software for microcomputers 2. Slip some secret code into the Linux kernel (via a collaboration with IBM) 3. Sue IBM 4. ??? 5. Profit!!!! And you know, in Soviet Russia, the dotbomb business plans come to you!

  163. Liars by mark-t · · Score: 1
    That's what these guys are.

    80 lines?

    First, they don't say that these lines are contiguous, Secondly, they offer *ZERO* proof that those 80 lines weren't taken from Linux and put into SCO's code or that the code for both was taken from some third source. And finally, and I quote McBride here...

    "The month of June is show-and-tell time. Everybody's been clamoring for the code...and we're going to show hundreds of lines of code."
    Those are his exact words, as recorded by many different news articles on this subject less than 2 weeks ago.

    Since when is 80 congruent to "hundreds"?

    This is bullshit. The fact that SCO doesn't even seem to realize it is nothing short of mind boggling.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:Liars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it
      depends
      on
      how
      you
      arrange
      those
      80
      lin es!

  164. Found it! by SnowZero · · Score: 5, Funny

    linux-2.5.69# wc -l ./include/net/bluetooth/sco.h
    81 ./include/net/bluetooth/sco.h

  165. Re: Consider this by nicodaemos · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Bah, Mensa membership is easy .... 1 out of every 50 idiots gets the invite. Back when I was a Giga Society member, Mensans were our boot licking lackeys. They were fit for all manners of menial tasks from ritualistic scrotum shaving to carrying the piss buckets. In a pinch, they were even handy as replacement skeet targets. Ah, the summers in Rangoon ... I remember them well.

    Anyway, I dropped out of Giga since they weren't exclusive enough. I'm now making a bid for the Exa Society. My Princeton Review book arrived yesterday, but I haven't cracked it open yet since the test isn't until next week. Wish me luck.

  166. You should be concerned, even at home. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Assuming SCO is correct and wins judgment, even if you are using a non commercial version it would still be illegal.

    True they wont be able to find you easily ( there are ways.. they could just scan the ENTIRE internet looking for OS signatures of machines that are direct connected, then send out letters to the ISP of the offending machines, demanding proof of license ), but legally it would still be a violation.

    Not much different then a pirated copy of windows in your house were you are ( currently ) fairly safe from prosecution, but not any less illegal.

    I wonder if they will start subpoenaing records of 'free' downloads next..

    I'm glad I switched to BSD a while ago for myself and customers, I've had so little to explain.. though yes, we could be next in a similar situation from a un-related angle..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  167. Things that have been running throught my dome... by cowmix · · Score: 1

    First.. since SCO is claiming that 3rd parties that licensed
    their source code are people that inserted their IP into Linux,
    only copies of SysV from 3rd parties should be used to do
    any evaluation. Personally, I do not trust SCO to use their own
    copies of SysV and anyway, their claims almost imply that one
    should be concerned with copies of SysV source outside their
    control. Come to think of it, if you could find a few companies
    that still use SysV, you could use all their code drops from
    SCO and construct a crude change log.

    Second, I am sure someone has asked this before but could
    someone that has a legal source code copy of SysV do a diff
    of that source base to the Linux kernel and post what lines
    match? I wonder is there is something in a licensee contract
    they have to sign that precludes them from doing that?

    Finally, I have been giving thought over who should being
    doing public code reviews. The best canidates so far that
    I have come up with who would be non-partial, honest and
    yet have something to *gain* by SCO winning would be:

    Bill Joy of Sun

    Andrew Tanenbaum

    Dennis Ritchie

  168. Re:When...KLoC's by Tuna_Shooter · · Score: 1

    According to Balmer this isn't even one KLoC....and after all isn't that the definitative criteria for figuring code costs ??? Just less than a KLoC's worth of thoughts...

    --
    *--- Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. ---*
  169. obsolete source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't SCO make the source for Xenix and some other obsolete products freely available a few years ago?

    Might the source in question reside entirely within /* */ delimiters as an example of brokenness avoided by a different means of implementation?

    Just curious is all....

  170. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  171. You missed out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /* This means filenames will be case-sensitive, but we can easily fix that before the product ships. Can't have computers thinking there are 52 letters in the alphabet. */

  172. Quickest way out: by io333 · · Score: 1

    There is a very simple way to shut them down and just be done with it. Any congressperson can tack an amendment onto any of the many bills that float around the congressional floor. An amendment can be very specific, e.g., "Due to rampant unethical behavior by SCO, suit will not continue." or some such. It's legal and it's constitutional. Has anyone thought about asking their local legislator to do this?

  173. What's the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am sure there is not a single line of copied code/trade secrects in my computer - because I use Windows and other high quality (closed-source) software!!

  174. This whole thing reminds me of a famous quote.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then
    they fight you, then you win. -- Ghandi

    I think that we're at the "then they fight you" stage.

  175. The important word is "American" by Nice2Cats · · Score: 1
    For these reasons, Linux in the US will likely suffer horribly over the next few months or perhaps even several years.

    I think you have a good point here.

    One aspect I think has been somewhat overlooked is that there are a heck of a lot of other countries that are using Linux and that are not going to give a rat's ass about some two-bit American company like SCO telling them the should stop using it. I just don't see the Chinese government going "oh well, then we'll just dump Red Flag Linux a switch to Microsoft" oder India halting their push towards Open Software.

    If this actually goes through (unlikely) and it has any effect on Linux use (unlikely), it will be the U.S. that is hardest hit, because people there will follow those laws. Like what is SCO going to do, sue China?

  176. GNU/Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does every article that mentions Linux in the context of the SCO just call it "Linux," while every other article here calls it "GNU/Linux?"

  177. Like Organized Crime by deck · · Score: 0

    Your version of capitalism sounds more like what orgnized criminal groups do. Oh wait! Your a Libertarian. Not much difference.

  178. A good start might be... by Litheroy · · Score: 1

    ...to do a diff on the Linux and BSD code bases to find all (if any) matching blocks of code. This code could then be shown to the "analysts" who have already seen SCO's "evidence". Even if nothing comes of this before the trial, as it is unlikely that a non-programmer analyst will remember the specifics of the code they saw, this sort of evidence could prove invaluable to the defence. Anyone out there familiar with both the Linux and BSD kernels willing to volunteer?

  179. Nope by DreadSpoon · · Score: 1

    Not true - quite a bit of code gets e-mailed directly to Linus, or another major contributor. Pre-bitkeeper, there are no real records of how any given code got in; unless Linus have a perfect recollection of every patch he's merged and who sent it to him...

    1. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does he keep archives of his email?

    2. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He claims to deal with quite a bit of email by deleting it, so it's doubtful.

    3. Re:Nope by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Lying is sometimes legal, but usually wrong. Lying regarding authorship of a work (essentially denying that previous versions of Linux were in fact infringing) may be legally dangerous.

      As a free, open project, they're free to call their updates whatever they like.

      Not necessarily. No one is allowed to evade the laws of his nation, of course. See this example of laws tampering with the Linux changelog.

      It will not affect distributors of GNU/Linux

      It will effect distributors, because if they leave old versions available, they could be liable for infringement.

      and no obligation to spend money to find out.

      Ignorance of a copyright is not a defense for infringing. (Demonstrating you were ignorant, and not willfully infringing, will reduce damages awarded, but is not a full protection. It will stop you from getting jail time, though!)

      Several areas of US Intellectual Property law obligate the public to make unfeasible efforts to determine they are uninfringing- most severly in the area of patents.

    4. Re:Nope by dh003i · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not necessarily. No one is allowed to evade the laws of his nation, of course.

      Whether something is wrong or not is irrelevant. The only laws regulating what you can and cannot say about something are consumer protection laws. If you say, for example, that something contains 100% of the required daily nutritional value, and it in fact contains only 20%, you're guilty of fraud. Since those who make FOSS aren't necessarily selling anything, this doesn't apply to them. It also doesn't apply to them if they lie about something that does not harm the user, as would be the case with this.

      It will effect distributors, because if they leave old versions available, they could be liable for infringement.

      In other words, it won't. If they feel the need to leave older versions available, they can do so, and simply replace the relevant code for those versions.

      Ignorance of a copyright is not a defense for infringing.

      Neither is fair use. It does, however, eliminate the possibility of any damages. You cannot punish someone -- either by jail-time or fines -- for infringing on something which they had no practical way of finding out they were infringing on. SCO has made it impossible for anyone to find out if they're infringing by secrifying their evidence, so they only solidify the argument that it was impossible to know.

      In any event, SCO does not have the resources to sue individual users, nor even the many distributors of GNU/Linux.

      Several areas of US Intellectual Property law obligate the public to make unfeasible efforts to determine they are uninfringing- most severly in the area of patents.

      Actually, it is adviseable to make *no* efforts in such regards, from a legal standpoint. Making no efforts to determine such legitimately gives you ignorance. Also, you independently re-invented or re-implemented whatever patented process is being spoken of, so there's a good argument that you have just as much right to use it as does the person who originally patented it. If you develop something independently on your own, you shouldn't have to pay someone else who came up with it first.

      In any event, this entire case is trumped up. SCO has provided no evidence to the public; what they have provided is covered under an NDA, which allows them to pick and choose what they'll allow people to see (iow, manipulate the results). This is certainly because either there is no shared code, or it is them that copied the code from Linux to their OS. As I've pointed out again and again, they nullified their entire case years ago when they distributed a GNU/Linux distribution under the GPL, therefore GPL'ing any code they could possibly be talking about now (if they ever had the rights to any of it anyways). It is also questionable whether they have any rights to the code their talking about, as is made clear by Novell.

      --
      social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
    5. Re:Nope by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Whether something is wrong or not is irrelevant.

      Actually, it matters a lot. Moral decline and all that.

      The only laws regulating what you can and cannot say about something are consumer protection laws.

      That's 100% wrong. More like 400%. There are dozens and dozens of laws specifying what you can say. Libel and slander for starters. Conspiracy. Negligence through inaction.

      And, fraud can occur without money changing hands. (Most obviously, when trying for admission to a school on the strength of other's work)

      FOSS

      Been reading Mitre?

      If they feel the need to leave older versions available, they can do so, and simply replace the relevant code for those versions.

      Then they're not really the older versions, if they've been changed. Besides, this whole discussion springs from the idea that Linus would be concealing the fact that a certain old version was infringing. Those vendors won't know what to change, if he falsified the Changelogs.

      Neither is fair use.

      Wrong. Not 400% wrong, but 900% wrong or more. Fair use is absolutely a defense against infringing.

      You cannot punish someone -- either by jail-time or fines -- for infringing on something which they had no practical way of finding out they were infringing on.

      You can punish them by informing them of the infringement at the time of your choosing, and Cease & Desisting them from operating the computer systems running their day-to-day money-earning business operations. If that were to happen, and some high profile Linux adopter lost 3 days of revenue, the Free Software reputation would be badly tarnished.

      In any event, SCO does not have the resources to sue individual users, nor even the many distributors of GNU/Linux.

      If their case had some merit, lawyers would volunteer for the chance of a payoff ("contingency"). (Boies, their current lawyer, is very well regarded. But he's being paid, so his service doesn't imply the case is strong)

      Also, you independently re-invented or re-implemented whatever patented process is being spoken of, so there's a good argument that you have just as much right to use it as does the person who originally patented it.

      That's a sensible argument, but patent law is completely opposed. Even if you invent the process before the patenter, if you don't publish, he can get the patent and then bar you from using your own idea. (This has happened; "prior art" only counts if it's public)

      In any event, this entire case is trumped up. SCO has provided no evidence to the public;

      Yes. If they'd simply provide the filenames of some part of Linux they alledge to be infringing, they'd gain back a smidgen of credibility.

      (They won't do that, because narrowing it down to a filename would enable the legions of interested parties to scour Changelogs and guess the name of the sinister inserter. Then the work to purge the bulk of Linux could begin. And SCO wants to keep Linux using-companies confused, so the threat of a sudden C&D shutdown hangs over them)

    6. Re:Nope by dh003i · · Score: 1

      . There are dozens and dozens of laws specifying what you can say. Libel and slander for starters. Conspiracy. Negligence through inaction.

      True, I hadn't considered that. Nothing under changelogs or comments in FOSS is covered by that, though.

      Fair use is absolutely a defense against infringing

      No, it is not. When you use fair-use in court, you plead guilty to copyright infringement, but say that your infringement was covered under fair-use; thus, you should be allowed to continue doing it, and shouldn't have any penalties levied against you.

      You can punish them by informing them of the infringement at the time of your choosing, and Cease & Desisting them from operating the computer systems running their day-to-day money-earning business operations.

      No-one's obligated to abide by any cease&desist letters, especially when no solid proof is provided. Until a court says otherwise, no-one has an obligation to pay any attention to SCO's foot-stamping, nor can they be held liable for ignoring it.

      If their case had some merit, lawyers would volunteer for the chance of a payoff ("contingency").

      No. IBM is the only company for which it would be profitable for them to sue, and actually get more money from the lawsuit than they wasted on legal bills. Likewise with lawyers. The money they could extract from individual users -- and even leading GNU/Linux companies like RedHat -- would not justify their time. In any event, they wouldn't be able to extract any money, as neither party had any way of knowing the infringement, thus has no liability.

      --
      social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
    7. Re:Nope by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      When you use fair-use in court, you plead guilty to copyright infringement, but say that your infringement was covered under fair-use;

      No... As I already told you.

      Check the law, if you don't believe me. It says "the fair use of a copyrighted work ... ... is not an infringement"

    8. Re:Nope by dh003i · · Score: 1

      Ok, this is sort of a gray area. Check the EFF's FAQ on Fair Use: http://www.eff.org/IP//eff_fair_use_faq.html

      --
      social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
  180. umm... sucker?` by oliverthered · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Did you consider his sig may be a piss take.

    Blonde bimbo, beware, I'm so beautiful.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:umm... sucker?` by Mensa+Babe · · Score: 1

      Did you consider his sig may be a piss take. Blonde bimbo, beware, I'm so beautiful.

      I am terribly sorry, but I find this childish and sexist remark of yours highly offensive. (Please don't mind if I don't even comment the pun in your subject...)

      I have really no idea why people react with such anger, when anyone dares to declare one's Mensa membership (or any other kind of superiority, while we are at it).

      We can argue that high IQ doesn't mean someone is a better thinker, or that the first place in a marathon doesn't mean someone is a better runner. But I surely hope even people which are not members of Mensa themselves soon will discover that such an argument is just plain ignorant, so you all might at the very least try to think about it, before we go to far and consider every single test ever made, every score, every human characteristic completely meaningless.

      --
      Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
    2. Re:umm... sucker?` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you troll too much.
      I thought it was quite funny though.

  181. Re: Consider this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Couple of wild points. I'm posting anonymously so it doesn't look like I'm bragging.

    1. Anything above 140 or 150 or so is basically arbitrary. The people writing the test aren't as bright as those who score that high, so the margin of error increases dramatically.

    2. My IQ is somewhere in the 160s, supposedly. I've met a few other people whom I was sure were smarter than I am. It never occurred to me to ask what their IQ was; but I was willing to listen to anything else they had to say. There are probably others with higher IQs who aren't "smarter" than I am. Our perception of intelligence encompasses too many different factors for a number to be meaningful.

    3. The Mensa member with the highest IQ is Marilyn Vos Savant, right? She's famous for having a 212 IQ, having been married (maybe still is married) to Jarvik of artificial heart fame, writing an advice column, and having a ridiculously appropriate last name. Last I checked, she did not find the cure to cancer, did not invent hyperluminal velocity travel, and did not decipher the Indus script. As a friend of mine says about Mensans, "never before have so many been so proud to do so little with so much."

    The moral of the story: IQ is meaningless. What matters is the combination between discipline, energy, educational opportunity, ethical motivation, and intellectual potential. If they all align, you get Einstein. They never all align.

    IQ is as meaningless a number as UID. It measures something, but it doesn't measure what it pretends to.

  182. Many eyeballs doesn't apply here... by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1
    Ah, but your forgetting the "many eyeballs" theory. I'm not a big believer in that theory, but many open-source advocates are.

    My point about "why should SCO bother" was that it's pointless to present proof to people who won't believe it proves anything anyway. Linux advocates should have established early on what they considered adequate proof. Then they wouldn't look like they are in denial now.

    In a way, I agree with you that what SCO has presented to the public was a pointless gesture as far as the lawsuit goes, because it proves nothing either way. It simply enflames the public sentiment on both sides of the issue--and this I think, is the true purpose here. Get everybody worked up about the possibility that there's stolen code in Linux--and the implied threat that SCO might "find" more and go after other compaies--so that IBM, Novell, or somebody feel compelled to buy them out.

    Unfortunately, SCO fails to convince us again here because they don't really WANT to convice US. They could care less about the OSS/Slashdot hangout crowds... It is about selling whatever worthless "IP" SCO owns to somebody so that the executives can all keep their golden parachutes.

    Also, dude, "Many eyeballs" is only useful if we know WHICH 80 LINES TO LOOK AT. Also, changelogs are quite relevant. If SCO has changelogs dating back to the day before the lawsuit was filed, and the linux kernel changelogs show work on those same lines as far back as 92-93, that would be important information for the judge to hear, eh?
    --
    Who did what now?
    1. Re:Many eyeballs doesn't apply here... by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Tell it to the poster I was responding to. He was the one the claimed that the problem was the number of lines of code involved.

  183. Re: umm this applies to all software by cookd · · Score: 1

    Very true. There is always the possibility that the commercial vendor is also selling something that is not properly licensed.

    But in reality, having the lawyers actually makes a difference in this case. All major software companies pay lawyers to check and make sure that everything is legit. If the lawyers miss something (or if the software company gets caught trying to pull a fast one), a commercial software vendor will be the first target for litigation, and will provide at least some kind of shield for the customer. The software vendor is likely to have a legal team to mount a defense, and is also likely to at least try to negotiate some kind of deal with the plaintiff. With open source, there is no company to attract the first pot-shots, so the users are the primary targets.

    For many, this risk is well worth taking, which is why open source projects continue to be used. But it is definitely a real consideration that needs to be examined before you bet the company on an open source project.

    --
    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
  184. Re: your sig (OT) by Cave+Dweller · · Score: 1

    `cout' undeclared (first use this function).

    You might wanna add "using namespace std;" or use the fully-qualified name of "cout" =)

  185. My bad -- it's Plebeian by swb · · Score: 1

    I was looking for a word to indicate the kind of rank-and-file, part-time kernel hacker who isn't one of the well-known glitterati.

    Since the probability of finding code that fixes a Linux problem, is acceptable to Linus and his lieutenants AND can be cut-and-pasted from SCO's base is substitutable for the value better known as "zero", it's likely SCO's claim is based upon similar comments and similar algorithms where its within the realm of possibile that the code could have been *adapted* from SCO code.

    But this is like arguing that because I slept last night and Kirsten Dunst slept last night, it's within the realm of possible that we slept together. Probability subsitutable for the value better known as "zero".

    1. Re:My bad -- it's Plebeian by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      But this is like arguing that because I slept last night and Kirsten Dunst slept last night

      But she didn't. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

  186. Yet another "here's the code" joke. by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

    #include
    #include
    #include
    #include
    #include
    #include
    #include

    #define IBM SCO /* Drunk. Fix later. */

    --

    You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  187. Slashdot users are such posers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think about it. Slashdot posts astory on high energy particle phsyics and suddenly everyone here is an expert. Slashdot posts a story on oatmeal cowboys, suddenly everyone has a story about lassoing the quaker oat guy. Here's a story on legal matters, and suprise, everyone is a patent attourney.

  188. 80 lines of Unix code on the wall... by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 2, Funny

    80 lines of Unix code you take 1 down pass it to Linus to send around 79 lines lines of Unix code on the wall...

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  189. SCO Business Plan by volkerdi · · Score: 1

    1. Steal 80 lines of code from Linux
    2. ???
    3. Profit!

  190. this one is kinda hard to prove on either case.... by scoobywan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think this is something that can be
    proven very easily. At best... you'd have to
    check SCOs backups of thier source from a while ago.
    I mean.... how hard is it to do a:

    date --set="-3 years"
    vi whatever.cc
    date --set="+3 years"

    This whole thing just doesn't make any sence.

  191. Re:What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + G by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1

    I suspect that the offending code doesn't come from the copyright contested Unix codebase, but from the work on the Monterey project (didn't Caldera release the old, genetic Unix code a year or so ago? It should be simple to check for code duplication).

    As far as I can tell SCO are accusing IBM of taking something from the Monterey codebase and putting it into Linux. For them to prevail it would assume that IBM and SCO had some sort of agreement that whatever was developed stayed "in-house." This is why the lawsuit is over Trade Secret violation and not copyright or patent infringement. And, as far as I understand with trade secret violation once the cat is out of the bag everyone (except the party guilty of leaking the secret) can use it without violating law. Now, if its SCO developed and owned code they could then follow-up with a copyright case, but I suspect that would be a lot harder to do (or else they'd be doing it right now).

    I suspect the only reason SCO is fighting about the SysV codebase is a) to scare the hell out of businesses to pay up some licensing fees and b) establish that they have the right to yank IBM's SysV license and thus fuck AIX (i.e. put a huge amount of leverage on IBM to settle quickly)

  192. Wow! It took SCO this long to by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    reverse engineer the Linux kernel??!!

    They should have downloaded the source code rather than the binaries, they could have saved us a lot of time and trouble...

    Perhaps they should look at Gentoo rather than Redhat for secret codes, considering that it's IBM they are going after..

    Sheesh!!

  193. Came in good faith from SCO itself by bstadil · · Score: 1
    That maybe SCO are telling the truth

    Maybe as they see it, but summarize some of the comments:

    The guy that wrote the 80 lines are obviously intelligent

    No effort was made to hide the comment or obfuscate the code

    SCO's former CEO is on record that they actively encouraged helping Linux with "whatever it takes"

    SCO at the height of Linux Craze had a strategy of trying to migrate all their clients to Linux

    It came from SCO itself, and done in good faith by the programmer.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  194. I bet the code serves no purpose... by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

    It was leftover code that was never optimized out of the kernal... like all the legacy coding still in AOL software from the 2.0 and 3.0 days...

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  195. Re:Has anybody considered - a different slant by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

    That's great. Linux should get back to its authentic roots-- an OS for the rebel, the hacker, the nonconformist. With a C&D order hanging over Linus's head, Linux could be that operating system.

    Like passing around copies of DeCSS, installing Linux could become a act of nonconformance-- a loud "fuck you" directed against the elites who think they run the world.

    That, or we could all run GNU Hurd.

  196. Who wrote it first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there's identical code, perhaps it was SCO stealing code from linux?

  197. Re:From the GPL... by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    SCO's Trade Secrets provide SCO with an advantage over its competitors.

    If that's true, then why is SCO such as rag-ass, no profit, failing, POS company that is all but dead and gasping it's last breath???

    That statement alone when held up to the facts self destructs..

  198. How does SCO imagine the end of the case? by Martin+Maciaszek · · Score: 1

    How are they going to remove the offending code from the sources with revealing what the offending code was? Everyone can diff just the sources and then figure out what is was. Unless they want to declare the whole kernel illegal.

    PS: Anyone up for a round of SCO code lotto? Just take a wild guess in which file and which line the offending code might me. The closest guess wins :)

  199. It's simple... by Angry+Pixie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    SCO secretly submits its own code to the Linux kernel maintainers under the disguise of individual independant programmers, hoping that some of the code gets accepted into the kernel, and that a future lawsuit over the issue will pay off ;)

  200. *IF* this is true, by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1
    I wish that SCO will make the code public so that I can FLUSH (as in toilet) from my systems.

    I want
    • NO PART
    of SCO SHITWARE in my systems.
    I will be elated to removing the offending code, for it offends ME..

    KMA SCO...
  201. David Boies and SCO by bstadil · · Score: 2, Interesting
    David Boies was a guest on the Charlie Rose show here a few days ago. He didn't talk about the SCO case but he outlines the basic strategy of the Lawfirm stemming from some of the adjustment he personally had to make since he suffered from severe dyslexia and still has some problems reading.

    Strategy is to get the facts first. All the facts. Good, bad or indifferent. Then understand the implication of those facts. Only then formulate a strategy that presents those facts in the best possible light for the client.

    He stated that the single most valuable asset that any trial attorney have in court is his credibility. If that is lost the case is most likely lost.

    This means NEVER try to present somethng that is factual dubious as it has a high probability of being countered. Better to present some of the counter arguments yourselves and put them in a less favorable light up front.

    Now this to me means that initially SCO preented a compelling case to David Boies, and whatever due diligence they did before they took the case (pretty much on contingency I might add) corroborated the claim.

    Now for the clincher

    Why wasn't the NDA drafted by David Boies'firm?

    Me thinks there is trouble in Paradise.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
    1. Re:David Boies and SCO by ansible · · Score: 1

      More importantly, was the initial complaint filed against IBM prepared by Boies' lawfirm?

      The initial version was laughably bad, and has been picked apart by ESR and others. We're talking about a billion dollars here, and no-one hired an outside guru to vet the claims made by SCO?

      I haven't seen any other legal work by Boies, but if this is a fair example of their work, I have severely not impressed.

    2. Re:David Boies and SCO by mec · · Score: 1
      More importantly, was the initial complaint filed against IBM prepared by Boies' lawfirm?

      I don't know if Boies' firm prepared the complaint, but their name is on it.

      SCO lawsuit documents

      See the complaint filed on 2003-03-06.

      Specifically, Davoid Boies of Boies Schiller & Flexner is one of the attorneys for Caldera Systems, Inc. d/b/a The SCO Group.

      ... I have severely not impressed.

      If you want a laugh, check out "IBM Files a Notice of Removal" from the SCO lawsuit documents. IBM points out that Boies filed the complaint in the wrong court.

      Disclosure: I am short SCOX.

  202. Intersting reading Dan McBride interview from year by Chris_Keene · · Score: 1
    Interesting looking back to this article from August last year when Dan McBride joined the Caldera (now SCO).

    Example quote:
    "The first four weeks on the job I've spent a lot of time looking for value points...there are a couple of interesting things in there that I found out about Caldera that I didn't know before. One, the intellectual properties that we hold -- we own SVRx, UnixWare, SCO Unix -- in terms of the Unix timeline, the thread that runs through the middle of these is really SVRx."

    I guess he found them 'interesting' enough to make them the main focus of the company.

    Chris.

    --
    You will forget this sig before you next see it
  203. Nope by dh003i · · Score: 1

    As a free, open project, they're free to call their updates whatever they like. In any event, in re-writing the relevant sections, they would undoubtedly code improvements, which menas that such an entry in the changelog would in fact be true. It's of no interest to the community either way, whether you say "changing to remove SCO code" or "improving performance". This entire case is of no relevance to the community. It will not affect distributors of GNU/Linux, as: (a) the allegations are trumped up; (b) were they true, the problem would quickly be coded around. It also will not affect individual users, as users are in no way liable for infringing code in the software they use -- they have no means of knowing that, and no obligation to spend money to find out.

    --
    social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
  204. Re: Consider this by localghost · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Now you're smart, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't percentile refer to the percentage of the population that is better than you? So wouldn't your percentile rank actually be 99.6?

  205. Re: umm this applies to all software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With open source, there is no company to attract the first pot-shots, so the users are the primary targets.

    Uh, IBM?

  206. From the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SCO contends that by co-opting code from Unix, Linux has severely damaged SCO's intellectual property. According to some estimates, the company collected annual revenue of between $200 million and $250 million on Unix System 5 software before the rise of Linux. After Linux reached the mainstream, those revenue figures dropped to about $60 million a year.

    And I'm really sure that's because of 80 lines of code (apparently that includes comments, blank lines, closing brace on a line by itself, "int i;", etc.). Anybody else notice that no mention of SCO's own forays into Linux development was mentioned in the article? The whole article reeks of FUD.

    Just sink quietly SCO. Sheesh...

  207. Re: Consider this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >>>Mensa membership apparently doesn't require you to be smart enough to know that you shouldn't brag about your IQ in a forum with ~ half a million readers.

    I would not brag about anything in which you can gain membership by taking an extended matchbook quiz.

  208. The BSD Hypothesis by The+Monster · · Score: 1
    What if SCO was leveraging their claims against BSD instead of Linux? The precedent behind all of this is the same regardless.
    Ah, but there's already a precedent WRT BSD and System V... AT&T had to settle their suit when it became apparent that, while BSD did have a smattering of AT&T code in it, System V had substantially more AT&T and the Regents of the University of California cross-licensed each other, making it all legal and proper

    So if the code in question was in SysV and BSD, and was thence brought into Linux in accordance with the BSD license, SCO is pretty much scrod.

    --

    [100% ISO 646 Compliant]
    SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.

  209. No Way! by jamesc · · Score: 1
    [ Congresscritters quash SCO-vs.-IBM suit with a bill rider on some legislation or another ]

    No way! This is one lawsuit that must go to a conclusion in the courts. The legal discovery process must continue so that IBM can get all the information it can from SCO. There are probably lots of smoking guns among SCO's back email and old memos. (Unless both have been purged prior to starting this farce.)

    Linux and the OSS process must be vindicated. IBM itself needs to demonstrate that any frivolous IP lawsuits against them will end with the plaintif a smoking hole in the ground (fiscally speaking). IBM has more patents than anyone. They can always find another company in violation of one or more of them. (Google for stories about IBM's patent goon squad.) IBM also has more IP lawyers than I care to think about, and they probably keep a paper trail a mile long on everything they do. (Due to their own anti-trust suit in the 80's.)

    It may take years because they are very cautious, but IBM has what it needs to smash SCO -- and SCO must be crushed in a very public and humiliating fashion.

    Once that is done, I hope that the Securities Exchange Commission investigates Daryl McBride and other SCO officers for stock pump-and-dump fraud. While jail time is probably too much to hope for, let McBride & Co.'s ill-gotten gains be eaten up by legal fees and their reputations be tarnished. (Although IMHO their actions have already tainted them. What a bunch of maroons!)

    --
    "You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
  210. when everybody will use Slackare System V free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Therefore Slackware is free of paying any royalties, since Slackware Linux can be run without System V

  211. One word by DrivesMyApe · · Score: 1

    Oberon

  212. The question that comes to mind... by Gerad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are these 80 continuious lines of code? Or are they 80 lines of code scattered about the thousands (millions?) of lines of code in the Linux kernel? If it's the first, I would say that SCO might actually have something resembling a case. If it's the second... *laugh*

    --
    Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
  213. The evidence must be weighed against facts by frovingslosh · · Score: 1
    Especially as we have 80 lines of identical code including comments which is the real kicker.

    The code with comments would be a strong indication that Unix code found it's way into Linux, but not that it was stolen or that IBM did it. Read the Cringley column for a much more reasonable explination and history of how these changes likely got into Linux, by a company that openly stated they were Unifying Unix with Linux for Business , SCO itself! Now they are trying to blame IBM with absolutely no proof at all (those 80 lines do not indicate they were added by IBM) and are already making a profit by threatening to sick lawyers on major Linux users if they don't pay SCO a license fee.

    After you read the referenced article, see if you still think those 80 lines are proof that the code is ripped off.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  214. I got the 80-lines by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    I managed to hack around and find a copy of the 80 same lines. They are not necessarily in order:

    }
    }
    }
    } //end-if
    }
    }
    }
    }
    }
    }
    } // end-while
    }
    }
    }
    }
    }
    } //end-if
    }
    ...etc...

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  215. Re:What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    That blog entry was talking only about limits to financial damages for copyright infringement that happened prior to registration. Earlier entries discuss other aspects. You can always ask for a judge to shut down a copyright infringement, even if you haven't registered.

    Think DMCA. Because SCO has already compared Linux users to pirates and told us frankly that they plan on using RIAA tactics, I think money from a copyright infringement lawsuit may not be the big stick they plan on using or at least not the only stick. What they might be thinking of, judging only from their public remarks, is to claim that anyone offering Linux for sale or download is offering stolen goods and users are using stolen goods, followed by a simple notice of copyright infringement to ISPs to get them to shut down the Linux sites.

    Meanwhile, they register the copyright and then start suing anyone who continues to offer it and use it. This is on top of the license they hope to then be charging all those who were foolish enough to license through SCO and are now scared enough to pay up rather than get sued. And then maybe they start criminal actions under the copyright law, a la RIAA, against particular "offenders".

    Perhaps they will never do any of these things, and they would first have to prove their allegations against IBM, but the point is that they could at least try them if they have copyright rights and can prove their "IP" is in Linux, and their remarks make it conceivable that they may be planning something along these lines eventually. The real solution is to just get any disputed code out of there, I would think, which they seem to know too, and I think that is why they won't really show anything that would make it possible to do exactly that in a timely fashion. Disclaimer: IANAL. I'm a paralegal. Posting as AC because I don't have an account.

  216. How SCO could resolve this, once and for all by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is an Open Letter to SCO.


    Dear SCO,


    The current debacle over who owns what in the SCO and Linux kernels is unacceptable to the Information Technology industry as a whole. The industry fares badly in times of uncertainty, and at present, the economy is offering more uncertainty than the industry can healthily support.


    I understand fully the rationale of not openly publishing the lines of code that are in question. However, given the claim that they are identical, the following method will allow SCO to demonstrate the legitamacy of its claims, without compromising on the security and integrity of its code base and Intellectual Property rights.


    I urge SCO to adopt either the four steps below, OR something that is similar, so that we can move beyond the fear, uncertainty and doubt, and into the realms of peacably resolving these issues in a way that benefits all parties concerned.


    As Professor Nash pointed out in his Nobel-prize winning paper on economics, competition functions best with cooperation. SCO and Linux are very different OS', with very different "ideal" markets. The overlap is small. Compete over the overlap, by all means. That is the idea of a free market. However, where no overlap exists, you risk expending resources on a sector you cannot gain.


    I therefore urge you to fight as hard as you can, where such a fight means something, but you know computer history well enough to know the fate of many companies who steered the course of pyrric victories. IBM and Apple both got burned badly from such policies, to the point where nobody could be sure of the future of either. Understand the economic and political implications of Professor Nash's work, before pursuing a policy that, historically, has proved treacherous to all sides concerned.


    As mentioned earlier, there are four simple steps SCO can do, which protect its Intellectual Property, yet prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. These steps are as follows:

    • 1) Compile the Linux kernel and the SCO kernel under the same compiler, with the same options (in this case, you'd want maximum debug).
    • 2) Put these two binaries on a website, such that you can extract a given string of N bytes, starting at position P into the binaries.
    • 3) To avoid revealing this mysterious trade secret stuff, show the MD-5 and SHA-1 hashes of those strings. If they are, indeed, identical, then SCO may have a case.
    • 4) If SCO has found such alleged chunks, they can supply the relevent N and P values for the binaries, to prove their case. If they CANNOT publicly supply such N and P values, even with all of the protections I've outlined to secure the code from being examined, then their case is more likely based on examining common abstract data types, common implementation techniques, or the implementation of a unique solution to a given specific problem.


    The point of the above "proof" is that SCO -could- win in the public opinion arena, by using a method of this kind, IF it has a case.


    If there are lots of (N, P) clusters, close together (ie: evidence of a similar function, using identical operations in an identical way, with identical symbol names, etc), then the Linux and IBM crowds would probably respect that and work to resolve this issue peacably, recognising that code from SCO does indeed appear to be in there.


    If, however, you have very scattered (N, P) blocks, with a very random distribution, you're much more likely to be looking at simple reuse of a common ADT, or the solving of specific problems with a unique implementable solution. When something is absolutely unique - there is only one algorithm, or block of code which can perform the task - then it is restraint of trade to attempt to own that unique method. Patents, etc, rely on the premise that alternatives, and thus competition, exist, and that you are merely protecting YOUR alternative, not denying others the right to compete.


    (This is one reason I think the patent system is seriously messed up. The case for a patent should be proven prior to patenting, as not all competitors are in a position to launch a serious challange to the lawfulness - either in letter or in spirit - of the patent.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  217. When someone other than an idiot gets a look at it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have EIGHTY lines of code.

    Complete with comments.

    That's more than enough to identify WHEN it was entered into the kernel and by whom.

    Well, that would be true if all eighty lines were in the same block, contributed by the same person (or group?).

    It isn't about whether there are identical bits of code in SCO and in Linux.

    It is about whether that code was stolen from SCO and put into Linux.

    What would support SCO's case would be if those 80 lines were submitted by one person, who had access to SCO code at IBM.

    What I'm waiting the part of the trial when they bring out the code and someone grep's the mailing list and kernel.org and finds that those lines were not submitted in that final form. They find that they were patches that had to be re-patched and polished until Linus accepted them.

    Or, someone hits the *BSD code base and finds the code was entered there PRIOR to it being accepted by Linus.

    Why haven't any of the people who've seen SCO's code done any ADDITIONAL research? Is it because they're idiots who don't understand what Open Source means? We'll, they'd have to be idiots to take SCO's NDA in the first place. This just shows that they don't have the brains to turn it to their advantage.

  218. RE: Your offtopic troll by g_bit · · Score: 0, Troll
    1.) You're an idiot.

    2.) Do you think that your sub-average IQ friends could run linux without breaking something? No.

  219. NFW, this is the biggest bunch of shit. by twitter · · Score: 1
    SCO seems to think they'll either be able to make Linux go away or force everyone using Linux to buy an SCO license. They might succeed in the former, at least as far as corporate support and adoption, but the latter will never happen.

    Do you pay a license to ATT? You won't pay a license to SCO either. In the highly unlikely case SCO proves someone missapropriated 80 lines of kernel code, those lines will be replaced overnight. SCO can fold those 80 lines till they're nothing but sharp corners and shove them up their collective assholes. The rest of the kernel is free, GPL and no one need pay anything but shipping charges to the source which they can then turn around and serve out all day long gratis.

    Linux won't go away, it will always be legal and corporate users are going to use it for the same reasons the rest of us will.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  220. Re: Consider this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you said it backwards, but the percentile is right.

  221. The code by dtfinch · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I have a feeling that SCO will never state to the public which of their code made it into Linux. Instead, they'll just try to prove it in court so that they can demand that all the linux distributors pay license fees. Since they won't know what code is SCO's, they won't be able to remove it to avoid the fees. If anyone does say which code is SCO's, they'll face charges of copyright violation.

    Even if they don't get their billion they'll still try to get those license fees. But I'm certain that they'll be counter sued for multiple GPL violations. They can't force their code to remain in Linux yet disagree to the GPL, which is what they appear to want to do.

    1. Re:The code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is EXACTLY Darl's plan.

      He intends to argue that GPL code is effectively public domain as the authors have renounced commercial interest in their work, and give away source and binaries.

      An additional part of the argument is that the GPL clause that requires source plus binaries is not enforceable, because although copyright holders (GPL authors) allow either to be distributed, they do not have the right in copyright law to force SCO or anybody else to do both of two independent actions (1/ distribute source, and 2/distribute binaries).

      If this works, you end up with Linux being 99%+ public domain, 1% SCO. As the SCO stuff is copyrighted, they own the copyrights on Linux overall.

      Finally a copyright holder that creates a work based on public domain work, is not obligated to reveal their public domain sources of content (there are many recent court cases to support this including a Fox one about some WW2 videos)

      So the only way to get a SCO-free Linux is effectively to start over, or start from a version which predates any SCO or IBM etc. involvement.

      Opinder Bawa does not seem to agree with this strategy.

  222. more likely theories: by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    1. The code went from Linux to sco and not the other way around. The NDA prevents us from knowing how far back the violtion goes in each source tree.

    2. The code came to Linux from UNIX by way of BSD, in which case it is already covered by the BSD lawsuit of years past.

    3. The 80 lines are not consecutive and/or are no big deal to replace. SCO would look like winey little brats if a single member of the OSS community corrected the violations in an hour.

    4. SCO placed the code in Linux to sue. They are scared as hell of companies switching from their precious and decrepit UNIX kernel to Linux.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
  223. To SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no usefull information in this article.

    If SCO's claims are true, they would publically announce exactly what they are. They have everything to gain and nothing to loose. They being the asses that they are, would probably say something like 'we can't tell everyone what parts of our secret so called intelectual property are in Linux because then everyone else will see all of our secrets'.

    Well, duh! If their claims are true, then everybody can already see what they claim to be their secrets.

    So SCO, either put up, or shutup. We are sick of hearing you ack like a 5-year old brat with a bad temper.

  224. You work for Microsoft, right? by twitter · · Score: 1
    However, very few people in business are going to understand this. Management are scared idiots, American management doubly so. They're going to stay away from Linux in droves....

    What wishful thinking! All the FUD in the world won't save an obsolete business model.

    It's natural for them to take this view so easily because they've been conditioned all their lives to believe that "there's no such thing as a free lunch"

    Go back to arguing that the TCO of free software is greater than that of Microsoft crap, it's more convincing though no less honest or correct. There is no such thing as a free lunch but there is such a thing as not getting ripped off all day long. I don't pay an anual fee for the IP involved in manila folders, yet I use them every day. OS theory and software concepts are as well knows, get used to it. People have co-operated for their mutual benifit to make software. It works better and it's available for close to it's true market value. It's not free and it will always take effort to get any use of it, but it now the effort required is approaching that of M$ junk. Nothing magic here, just good hard work paying off. Management understands that and this FUD campaign is going to backfire in the worst of ways on M$.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  225. Steal and give back? by r3jjs · · Score: 1

    Actually, thats not quite true, at least not in my city.

    When I was an assistant manager at a local retail store we found one of the employees had stolen several thousand dollars from the company. This brought the "Asset Protection" people into play and they came to the store.

    An arrest was made but because the employee made an agreement to pay back the money, the local police *would* *not* charge her with a criminal offense.

    1. Re:Steal and give back? by gregorio · · Score: 1
      Actually, thats not quite true, at least not in my city.

      When I was an assistant manager at a local retail store we found one of the employees had stolen several thousand dollars from the company. This brought the "Asset Protection" people into play and they came to the store.

      An arrest was made but because the employee made an agreement to pay back the money, the local police *would* *not* charge her with a criminal offense.
      Well, it happenned this way because the people envolved had an agreement. I don't believe that's gonna happen in SCO's case ("ok people, just remove the code and we are all ok").
  226. It's all suddenly so clear... by Espressoman · · Score: 1

    Why doesn't SCO just show the offending code to everyone? I think I might know why - they don't want the programmer(s) to come forward! If they show isolated bits of code, then no programmer X will have the opportunity to come forward and say "hey, I wrote that for Linux, so what's it doing in SCO's code?!" SCO hasn't said anything about the person who supposedly misappropriated the code, even though the comments and development records would make thier identification quite simple. Perhaps the person was working for SCO!

  227. Karma Misappropriation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the hell modded this up?

  228. Quicker method. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait for the trial.

    Get the lines of code that are suspect.

    grep the sources in Linux and *BSD and any other OS you have legal rights to.

    Then start tracing back to see when it was entered, by whom and who has the earliest instance of it.

  229. So What? by Tuckdogg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's assume that SCO is right. Assume that the 80 lines of code from the kernal are from Unix, copied line by line. That doesn't prove their case. In order to win, they have to prove copying and that IBM did it. If they can't show that IBM is the company that copied the code, they aren't entitled to jack at trial. And I seem to remember a certain company called Caldera (you may know them better as SCO now) bragging to no end about how they were going to merge Unix and Linux into a single product. If you don't think IBM is going to harp on that like crazy at trial, then you obviously aren't paying attention.

    --
    Tuck
    Tuck's Journal.
  230. What was not said by diakka · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I think many people here are implying things that may not be true. First, the article states:


    "The two blocks of software, they said, contained as many as 80 lines of identical code, along with identical developers' comments."


    Notice that it NEVER STATED that the 80 lines were a sequential unbroken segment. I believe that if it was, they would have said that to strengthen their claim. For all we know, they may have simply taken files and tried to see how many lines were identical. If they found a particularly large file, they could have just found random lines completely out of order that just happen to match up.

    You may also be assuming that the 'identical comments' are on the same lines as code. They could be simply on a seprate line. They may also be very short and virtually meaningless comments.

    We also don't know their definition of identical. Most of you are probably assuming that they mean the lines match up exactly, character by character. Perhaps SCO's definition is that they simply serve the same function, or that the comments have the same meaning. Even if the lines matched up byte by byte, this may not be as big of a coincidence as it seems since it is very common for people to use code beautifiers such as 'indent' that could easily produce the same spacing results even if the 2 original lines came from completely different sources.

    What constitutes a 'line'? perhaps they are also counting single character lines such as an open and close curly bracket. What one coder writes as a single line in C may be broken up in to several lines by another coder.

    All in all, 80 lines out of millions is an extremely insignificant amount. And what's more, I find it highly unlikely that those 80 lines contain any information worthy of trade secret protection. I feel fairly confident that your average linux kernel hacker could whip out 80 lines of code in less than a day.
    --
    -- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
  231. I've got the answer!!!! by shaitand · · Score: 1

    We just change the comments in all sco and ibm then have IBM bring a copy of the vanilla kernel to court and ask SCO to show were this alleged code is! Show us the DNA! It will sound very convincing when IBM explains to the judge that SCO has not released the infringing code publically so there is no way it could have been changed in response.

  232. SCO's secret plan..*shhh* trade secret!!! by macshune · · Score: 0, Redundant

    1. sim sco_code.c kernel.c > linux_fucked.txt

    2. e-mail linux_fucked.txt to lawyers.

    3. Meet microsoft in a back alley, laugh manaically and take posession of suitcase of full of money.

    4. High 6 junior high kids for "PR department internship program."

    5. Feed the lawyers, let them out of their cages and wait to be purchased by a larger company BECAUSE SCO IS SO DAMN OBNOXIOUS!!!


    It won't end until SCO stops kicking and screaming and grows the fuck up:)

  233. Re: Consider this by wuice · · Score: 1

    I've met several people in Mensa, and all the ones I've met have had one thing in common: they are dumb as bricks. Most of the ones I've dealt with are sheltered and ingorant of reality.

    Not meant to be a blanket statement, just a warning that IQ (just a number) and intelligence are two different things.

  234. Ignoring the GPL? by Oriumpor · · Score: 1

    Have we all been ignoring the gpl here, or is this overwelming frustration we all have just causing us to be blindsided.... Caldera WAS RELEASED by SCO-CORP (yes, later it was spun off) BUT the same company is suing IBM (and harassing companies) for using what they legally gave their rights away from.

    This hasn't even made it to court yet, but when it does I REALLY hope a motion for dismissal is filed based upon this very fact. (Then again, most motions for dismissal are ignored if the slightest evidence precludes them... so holding a CD with the *offending* code Labeled *CALDERA LINUX* would surely have some legal holes, what I have no idea... but then again IANAL.)

  235. Beat the dead horse or SCO's denial by makoffee · · Score: 1

    I don't care whats in these 80 lines of code, no matter what it is, 80 lines of code is NEVER worth a billion dollors. SCO must be in denial or something. Their company is doing poorly do to a number of other reasions, such as the economy, and perhaps just because unix just kind of sucks compaired to linux. That 80 lines of code that IBM may or may not have payed for is not what makes linux rule and unix drull. SCO needs to just give up on unix all togeather, it's a dead horse.

    --
    -makoffee
  236. I'm confused. What's RedHat doing by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Redhat, Mandrake, Debian et al. have legal teams, I believe.

    GNU, and FSF, should care what is going on with this case.

    OSI has something to say too.

    In reaction to posts like this one linux distributors should sue SCO, asking for the following:
    A. Injunction against scaring potential and existing customers away from linux, using threatening letters.
    B. Disclosure of offending lines of code.
    C. Bar SCO from legally threatening ANY Linux user under the grounds of copyright infringment, since SCO has already released all the code under the GPL (and continues to do so, by disseminating linux-kernel-source from their website).

    It seems to me that this should be a simple process. Indeed, if I wasn't dead broke, I might decide to file a case like this myself.

    In addition, why not fork SCO's Caldera kernel-> Isn't their custom kernel usuable as 'linux'? Just take their kernel, strip out the SCO bits, add our own, and call in the SCO-lawsuit-protected kernel--after all, you got it from SCO, and they have agreed not to prosecute people using their code.

    Infact, this last option seems to be an ace in the hole for us. Unless I'm wrong, in which case someone should explain why to me.

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
  237. A fact by fact recount.... by borgheron · · Score: 2, Informative

    All,

    Here are the facts, which are not in dispute:

    1) SCOs claim on the UNIX codebase is tenuous given:
    a) the recent claim made by Novell (despite the recent location of an amendment to that agreement) and
    b) the 1993 ruling in the AT&T vs BSD case.

    2) In the words of Ransom Love (former CEO), SCO was "Combining Linux and UNIX for business". So, their own advertising campaign suggests that they were doing this themselves.

    3) SCO was a Linux Distributor and is still a member of the United Linux Consortium.

    4) While acting as a Linux Distributor SCO released this code under the terms of the GPL.

    5) SCO has not bothered in years to pursue this, so why now? Obviously to save their own necks due to the fact the SCOs UNIX derivatives have been selling very poorly.

    With all of these indisputable facts weighing against them, SCO's case in the court is by no means certain.

    GJC

    --
    Gregory Casamento
    ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
  238. So just re-write the 80 lines! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    should take about 1 hour to re-write those lines, big deal. They had to notify IBM first of the violation and let them correct it, did they do that? NO!
    So correct it, 80 lines, big deal!
    And how is it 80 lines of code made the entire OS? I would say .000001 percent of the code didn't make Linux whoop their ass!
    It was the other 99 percent of the code that whooped them bad!

  239. 80 Lines of code: Evidence of Copying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it me or does the stated evidence (sight
    unseen) seem pathetically weak? 80 identical
    lines of code? Some with identical comments?

    I wonder how many of you have the following
    line in your software: /* Loop over each item */
    for(i=0; ilen; i++)

    If you do have such a line of code in your
    code, please send me a check for one billion
    dollars.

  240. If the code is identical ... by JavaTHut · · Score: 1

    Can't they just say "look at lines x-y in file z"?

  241. Nobody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CSO lied to the reporter and the reporter wrote the lie without fact checking.

  242. The Final Straw to me by LuiWoh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Over the years I have gone back and forth. Running Linux (RedHat, Slackware, Debian) and Windows (95,98 XP Pro) Sometimes a dual boot system, other times just Windows, other times just Linux. I, like the rest of you, have read and followed the SCO situation and today... Yes today... decided I will never use a proprietary OS again. This case is so stupid to me it is amazing. How about as a society we move forward instead of backwards? It is just about money, isn't it? Free as in Beer or Free as in cash? I, today am choosing Free. You decide what one.

  243. Easy to get around by mark-t · · Score: 1
    Okay... I've come up with a way around this. But I suspect it may be in the best interests for me to be vague and obscure.

    Suffice it to say that the weakness in their NDA requires that although you not diclose any information relayed by SCO, there will inherently exist information about the code and its location that SCO will not be revealing (and therefore not subject to the NDA), but can be deduced solely by reason and common sense, which if revealed, would be sufficient information for sufficiently informed individuals in the general public to correctly deduce the code's location, or at least proximity.

    Think DeCSS.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:Easy to get around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about hashes? Couldn't you find, say, a marker comment at the beginning and end of the offending sections. Take the md5 hash of these comments, and distribute them. Would this count as distributing protected information? I would argue not (unless an md5 hash is a derivative work?) since for all intents and purposes the original text can't be extracted from the hash alone.

      Again, lawyer (and I guess IANAL) types... responses are appreciated.

  244. IBM by gmby · · Score: 1

    Is it worring anyone else that IBM is been very quiet about this? Someone once told me; it's the quiet ones, one has to worry about.

    --
    I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
    1. Re:IBM by janda · · Score: 1

      Not at all. IBM, unlike SCO, is involved in this case to win, not to inflate their stock price, or get bought out, or whatever it is that SCO is doing.

      --
      Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
  245. IBM has the SCO source and the Linux source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can do the analysis. Wonder if their agreement with SCO prevents them from offering up replacements for the offending lines (if such exist).

  246. Diff between Wisdom, intelligence, IQ, Mensa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Wisdom -- knowing what is the best way to do things. If you have wisdom, you probably will have a pretty good life, qualitatively speaking.

    Intelligence -- Knowing the smartest way to do things. If you have intelligence, you probably will make more money.

    IQ -- Factor that indicates the speed at which you can learn things. If you have an IQ, you probably can pick up skills more quickly.

    Mensa Membership -- As far as I can tell, IQ*Ego/Wisdom is proportional to probability of mensa membership.



    Just as an example, my IQ was measured at over 170. I never joined Mensa [Wisdom is low, but so is Ego], and my intelligence for a lot of things is lousy -- for other things, it's great. Put me in front of a stove, and I can cook up a great meal. In front of electronics chips and breadboard, and I'll cook up a great afternoon, plus a neat little controller-or-something. In front of students or any other social situation, and you're going to find that I can't cook up anything. In a machine shop, I'll cook up a disaster, but not the disaster I intended.

    Interesting that I should mention cooking in the same paragraph as IQ? Well, IQ has to do with how well and quickly you learn. Some people learn cooking.

    [Posted anonymously, because I mentioned my IQ.]

  247. The Aberdeen Group.......Again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've shown it to the Aberdeen Group - which has a history of trying to make Windows look as secure as hell when there is a shit load of evidence to the contrary.

    You have to ask yourself what SCO is getting out of this because as a company they are totally doomed. No one will do business with them, and they don't seriously believe that all these Fortune 500 companies are going to buy SCO licenses, do they? I smell a stinking rat a mile off.

    Even from the language of the SCO people you can here the airy, fairy Microsoft PR training coming through - "Protect your IP", "It's not about copyrights" "Nothing is finalised yet" "It's for the protection of Linux users" (not actually SCO's words, but the general gist of it) etc. etc. I see the secret backing of Microsoft here no matter how much of a conspiracy theory people might think that is. They really do need to watch their step because if it gets out that they are backing SCO......

  248. i just realized that by malus · · Score: 1

    some of my code is in the linux kernel...

    lines 32 through 82 of cpuid.c were stolen from me.

    I demand compensation.

  249. The Question... by iMMo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ok, I wasn't quite sure where to post this, but I just had to do it:

    I was in my local hardware store yesterday, buying some stuff for the yard. At the till, the cashier began ringing in my purchases, and suddenly - the till crashed. She commented to another cashier - "this is the third time today that this stupid register has crashed!". Being the curious type, I watched the screen of the till as it rebooted, and what did I see? (c) The Santa Cruz Operation. I think even M$ can run a cash register without crashing... So, I guess the question remains, with that sort of reliability ---

    Who would *want* to steal from SCO???

    P/S A few months back, I saw another sales system crash in a retail store, but it was OS/2 ... what's up with retail outlets using crappy OSes for critical systems??!?

    1. Re:The Question... by talks_to_birds · · Score: 1
      My God!

      Funny you mention this!

      I actually sysadmin'ed a POS system at an auto parts store for about a year, around 1987..

      The OS?

      SCO Xenix, running on an NEC 80386..

      A-Plus was the software, if memory serves, but that was a *long* time ago...

      The cash drawer was kinda funky on that system, too...

      t_t_b

      --
      I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
  250. *Only* 80 lines? by JohnFred · · Score: 2, Interesting


    I'm amazed: think of the number of system interfaces - things like ioctl() and friends - that must be identicall across any Unixish/Posixsh system and I'd be surprised if that didn't add up to more than 80 lines.

    Of course, that may be SCO's IP grab: they want to own anything vaguely *like* UNIX. I kind of admire their sheer brass balls...but don't quote me on that.

    --
    /usr/games/fortune > ~/.signature
  251. How about comparing compiled versions ? by M1000 · · Score: 1

    Does the SCO kernel can be compiled with gcc ? is it ?

    Why not try to compare the binaries of the kernels to maybee find the code in question ?

  252. Embrace and Ignore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The process of "let's buy what looks good at the time, and leave it there until massive hell breaks loose" seems to be commonplace. The squeaky wheel gets fixed first.. the major question, then, is how squeaky these computers need to be, before they get attention?

    Is it cost-effective to pay a $6.00/hr employee an extra half-hour of downtime, or shell out a lot more for a new infrastructure?

    Sure, you'll lose customers and stuff if you don't replace, but some people fail to see the collatoral damages caused by inferior craftsmanship.

  253. Re: Consider this by kazad · · Score: 1

    everyone uses IQ as a test of intelligence, but it's a bunch of bull. do you think intelligence is a scalar quantity that fits on a nice scale? IQ tests were created to test the developing progress of mental patients. an IQ is a ratio of your "mental age" / "physical age" * 100. the average IQ is 100 because most people's mental age is the same as their physical age. it's not because the test is scaled and rebalanced to have this effect. Similarly, an IQ > 100 means you've developed more quickly, 100 means you developed more slowly. but it doesn't really have to do with intelligence at large, i don't think there is any way to test it except to look at the decisions and actions one has made in life. THAT is a nice test of intelligence =)

  254. Re: Consider this by nofx_3 · · Score: 1

    The moral of the story: IQ is meaningless. What matters is the combination between discipline, energy, educational opportunity, ethical motivation, and intellectual potential. If they all align, you get Einstein. They never all align.

    You just contradicted yourself here, in the case of Einstein you sau they do all align so its not true that they never all align. I would also assert that a pretty good combination created Descartes, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Edison, and probably many others who are less famous or simply aren't coming to mind right now. The fact that I know the names of these people who are from a different part of the world and died long before I was born certainly shows their significance.

    --
    Visualize Whirled Peas
  255. I think I found it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let's see, headers count, right? (A non-programmer wouldn't understand headers are not code)

    Which header would be exactly the same between two Unix versions, down to the comments?

    linux-2.5.70 # wc -l include/asm-generic/errno.h
    100 include/asm-generic/errno.h

    It's more than 80 lines.

    1. Re:I think I found it. by janda · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Headers are code just as much as anything else.

      You (and the others that have brought this up) have a very valid point, though. There are certain to be several header files (um, stdlib.h, stdio.h, math.h, time.h) which have, over time, become identical.

      There's probably structures and other data-related items that have also through the years converged, thanks to BSD and other things.

      Which is probably another reason why SCO is trying to spread so much FUD about this whole situation, and won't let anybody competent see the "offending code".

      A comment on the NDA: I've seen some nasty NDA's over the years, but this one wins the "only a complete fool would sign this" award hands down.

      --
      Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
    2. Re:I think I found it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, errno.h isn't that much of code. It's just a bunch of #defines, and the comments are the exact same thing strerror() gives you.

      I don't doubt some people would classify symbolic constant definitions as *code*, but I think that's stretching things a little bit. I'd call them *data*.

      Dumb slashdot 10-comments-per-day limit, posting from another IP.

    3. Re:I think I found it. by helebor · · Score: 1

      How about putting SCO up for the next Darwin award? There is a long tradition behind such recognition being made posthumously. This awardee would have the extra fun of being alive to watch the worms consume its flesh.

  256. Why the Aberdeen group? by BigFootApe · · Score: 1

    The Aberdeen group's history of shady dealings have left them with no credibility.

    Is SCO trying to make their case look bad?

  257. Re:Things that have been running throught my dome. by wilddur · · Score: 1

    It is a good and simple idea. But I can imagine 200000 lines of code like: i++; I suppouse that there is a need for a little more complicated system. Not to complex but it will have some work.

  258. Re: Consider this by Rakarra · · Score: 1
    Every Mensa member I've ever met walks around believing they are the most intelligent person in the room, at all times.

    How do you know? What about all the Mensa members you may have met who weren't pretentious enough to tell you they were in Mensa?

  259. Can't SCO be forced to reveal it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it possible for a Linux company in the US to go to a judge and make him force SCO reveal what code it is? I mean they are damaging the every Linux company out there including IBM, Oracle etc.
    It did happen in Germany in a preliminary ruling.

    I don't know what laws you have in the US but here in Denmark if someone accuses you of doing anything illegal you can demand they prove it in court. SCO is accusing me of using some of their code illegally, so maybe I should sue them. I.e. they either have to publicly denounce it or prove it in court. I don't know if a company could do it though.

    Do anyone have plans of suing SCO to force them revealing the code and thus give the kernel hackers a change to remove the offending code - if any - before more damage is done ?

  260. Kind of like Saddam about those WMDs. by marlowe · · Score: 1

    He sure acted guilty. Some say he didn't have them, but he thought he did. could be the same deal here.

    --
    http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
  261. worthless by 73939133 · · Score: 1

    Even if the analysts are correct, the most likely cause of this is that both projects copied code out of BSD or some other public domain source. Without some definitive proof that SCO actually holds the copyright on the code in question, detection of copied code is worthless.

  262. 80 lines? by talks_to_birds · · Score: 1
    80 f*ckin' lines?

    That's it?

    Give me a break.

    *Which* 80 lines?

    I continue to refuse to buy into a bit of this.

    SCO is dead meat, and good ridance..

    t_t_b

    --
    I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
  263. Copied Code and Comments might be nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you go to Dennis Ritchie's pages at Lucent you can read the judge's rational for denying AT&T an injunction against BSDI based solely on copied code and comments:
    http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/b sdi/930303. ruling.txt

    Here's what AT&T's expert said:
    According to Professor Carson, eighty of the 8,000 Net2 files are "littered with textual references which are or (sic) identical or substantially similar to corresponding textual matter in the UNIX/32V source code." (Ibid.) These textual overlaps include variable and parameter names, function names, the text of noncoding comments, and the actual sequence of the instruction code itself. (Id. at 23.) Most of these textual references are concentrated in files in the "kernel" of Net2, "which forms the central core of the operating system-" (Id. at 14.)

    Here's the BSDI response:
    Defendants argue that virtually all of these traits reflect publicly available code, copied comments, or overlap dictated by compatibility with industry standards.

    The bottom line is that there are many situations where the same code and comments don't constitute a smoking gun.

  264. Re:Has anybody considered - a different slant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    , the judge's words are final ... , the judge's words are final.

    Until the appeal... :-)

  265. Re: Consider this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who actually cares about that kind of crap ain't too bright.

  266. Not for a Biker! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've known quite a few bikers with that name.
    And yes, Jon "Maddog" Hall IS a biker.
    RTL! LTR!

  267. Look I think the point here is that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BSD is dying.

    Nothing beats the flexibility, scalability and useability of Microsoft Windows® XP.

    rob got anal herpes from an underage boy in the phillipines.
    eat me. geek l0serz

  268. Maybe... by SkewlD00d · · Score: 1

    SCO copied Linux code?

    Just a random, alternative explanation.

    Or maybe, the same monkies they got to write Shakespear by random chance, wrote the same exact code in two different places. Let's think... the odd of randomly producing the same 1K of code have an upper-bound of about 1 in 64^1024, still not exactly zero. A Lower bound would be a big factorial expression. Ignoring the comments and differences in names and variables, most becomes VERY similar (hence OOP & patterns).

    --
    The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
  269. Does OSS clash with capitalism? by raw-sewage · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A co-worker and I regularly have some semi-heated discussions, given that I'm pro-OSS and he's very much anti-OSS (and pro-Microsoft to boot).


    He subscribes to the GNU software = communism FUD. Although I disagree, I do get a bit worried when he makes the following point: the issue isn't about whether or not Linux has code stolen from SCO, it's about their intellectual property. My co-worker loves to make the point that when you talk about open source software, it's about communal ownership of intellectual property (and I agree, that's the whole point). But he claims that principle clashes with capitalism, because, eventually, some open source software will look a lot like some commercial offering. Even if there's no actual stolen code, the commerical compnay will see it as an intellectual property violation---they're going to come looking for their due profits.


    John Dvorak kind of hints to this in the following article:


    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1115156,00.as p"


    Code or no code, it's possible that SCO sees their concepts or ideas being used in Linux, probably something they could (at one time) consider a competetive advantage.


    How hard would it have been for some IBM staff working with SCO during their deal to go home and put the same ideas or technology (in the general sense, i.e. no actual code) into Linux?


    I'm afraid the Dvorak article makes the following valid point: this whole mess is bad for Linux unless it's completely thrown out. The worst case is a settlement or ruling in favor of SCO: it sets a precedent for other companies to sue open source businesses for intellectual property theft.

    1. Re:Does OSS clash with capitalism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, capitalism conflicts with Intellectual Property.

      In a truly capitalistic system, anybody who can improve on someone's idea and market it properly will always do well.

      So, if I were to improve windows XP by removing activation and selling it, I should become a millionaire.

      But if I did that, I'd actually go to jail. Bummer, huh?

    2. Re:Does OSS clash with capitalism? by Tokerat · · Score: 1

      In a truly capitalistic system, anybody who can improve on someone's idea and market it properly will always do well.
      Sounds like how OSS works.
      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  270. hm, as a customer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'd certainly be irritated by SCO:
    In January you'll get information that they join United Linux and all the usual "it's da future" marketing. Half a year later they threaten to sue customers who are using it. That's for sure a company you can trust ...

  271. Re:Lawyer's Algorithm: Fix bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someones_assets+= sue(ridiculous_sum);

    should be:

    someones_assets -= sue(ridiculous_sum);

  272. Aberdeen and M$ in bed. coincidence? by Mark19960 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Correct me if im wrong here...
    M$ and Aberdeen are in bed....
    SCO shows Aberdeen evidence...
    its in the best interests of all 3 parties that linux be gone. SCO can extort money from everyone, and that will make M$ software look good.
    M$ gets wish, to scare companies away from linux and OSS
    Coincidence? maybee.
    we REALLY need to find that code. if it exists, it can be very damaging

  273. 80 lines of code could be significant... by qtp · · Score: 1, Interesting

    to the courts.

    Remembering that most lawyers and judges are not all that knowledgable about programming, SCO could use 80 lines of plagerism to claim that there is a much deeper pattern of copying and paraphrasing going on (disregarding the fact that the vast majority of kernel contributers have had no access to propietary kernel code of any type). And the courts are influenced by the political environment of the time.

    I've begun to view the underlying issue here as not one of SCO's ownership of particular code, but more an issue of ownership in general. There is a school of thought that believes that ownership is a neccessary aspect of all things and that things (objects, ideas, actions) only have value if they are paid for. This philosophy has been touted by such notables as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Ronald Reagan, George W Bush and his father. For the user base of GNU/Linux to not see this lawsuit as the beginning of yet another battle in the struggle to curtail the free distribution of ideas (source code are ideas) among men and women would be a mistake. If SCO were to convince the court that the 80 lines of code somehow bestowed upon the Linux kernen a taint (trade secrets) that cannot be removed, then the court may be conned into believing that the kernel is in part owned by SCO and that the distribution of the code and/or binaries should be accompanied by the paying of royalty. In addition, there has been an increasing attitude towards Free Software and Open Sourse that these ideas somehow endanger the economy of the United States (ask around, you'll see what I mean).

    The difficulties that Free Software and Open Source Software pose to implementation of manditory DRM (censorship )is interpeted as a threat to not only to the distributers of movies and music but also to the political and law enforcement industries that see media as a way to shape the opinions, ideas and beliefs of the American citizenry. For an example we need only to look at the media coverage of the 2000 presidential election results and the lack of criticism over the courts refusal to mandate a meaningful recount and the subsequent appointment of a George W. Bush by 5 Supreme Court Justices.

    An other example would be the casting of the DeCSS code as a "piracy tool" by virtually every news source covering the dispute, when in fact, DVDs can and are pirated without the use of the DeCSS code by software that incorporates licensed code provided by the DVD makers (Expert Guides' DVD Copy. There has been little noise from the MPAA over this tool or software like it, and no mention of such software in media coverage of the DeCSS case.

    If the courts are affected by a political stance that views Free Software as somehow being "bad" (for the economy, for national security, etc), then this case is not about 80 lines of code, but about Free Software in general. If the case is decided in favor of SCO, the court may decide on a remedy that is not as simple as removing the offending code.

    --ptw

    --
    Read, L
  274. It might not be just 80 lines of code... by thgreatoz · · Score: 1
    First, let me just say that I am fully against SCO and their claims that Linux ripped off their code. I think its far more likely that the opposite is true.

    However, on the off chance that it is true, there's nothing that specifically says that it's merely 80 lines of code...that's simply all SCO, in their infinite wisdom, has deigned to give our lowly linux developers. (whatever)

    --
    When their numbers dwindled from 50 to 8, the dwarves began to suspect Hungry.
  275. Re: Consider this by mr3038 · · Score: 1
    Mensa membership apparently doesn't require you to be smart enough to know that you shouldn't brag about your IQ in a forum with ~ half a million readers.

    I would not brag about anything in which you can gain membership by taking an extended matchbook quiz.

    I'm pretty sure that he was suggesting that if a forum has half a million readers, the changes are pretty high that you're not the brightest person in the whole forum. Especially when the forum is something like slashdot where the average member probably has IQ much higher than 100.

    Or perhaps your post was a simple flamebait or you tried to be funny. Posting AC didn't help even a little bit.

    --
    _________________________
    Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
  276. Has anybody considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that maybe SCO are fraudsters - that maybe they showed code directly from the linux kernel source that doesn't actually exist their own?

    MS isn't stupid enough to include GNU code in their apps. An accusation of such would be very fishy, considering there's plenty of BSD-licensed code out there that they can legally absorb.

    There is no "real kicker" until they actually show the proof. Hand-picking "experts" and making them sign NDAs doesn't cut it.

  277. IBM will be punished, but Linux will still prosper by reporter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    We need to clearly separate (1) our support for Linux and open-source programs and (2) our distaste for stealing intellectual property. SCO has clearly found damning evidence that some code in Linux has been stolen. We must support SCO's efforts in obtaining proper royalties (not monopolistic royalties) for the intellectual property that SCO owns.

    After the pro-Linux folks read the article, "Huawei admits to a little copying", most of them support Cisco and condemn the Chinese who deliberately stole intellectual property (IP) from Cisco. The Chinese culprit literally copied the computer code verbatim from the Cisco diskette. So, if we condemn the Chinese in the aforementioned article, we must condemn whoever stole SCO's Unix IP.

    Does supporting SCO mean that we put a stake into the heart of Linux? Of course, not. The courts have repeatedly ruled that companies are permitted to build clean-room clones. AMD's Athlon is a good example.

    We merely delete the stolen code from Linux and write compatible code to replace. We can get some Ph.D. student from Carnegie Mellon University to write the code. It really is not difficult.

    Then, we trace the stolen code back to the person who stole it, and we send her to prison. We then strengthen the open-source development process by establishing a certification process by which we certify every piece of open-source code, guaranteeing that it is original IP. The open-source development process right now is broken because it is just too easy for someone to use stolen code and to submit it as original IP. No one is really checking the code's authenticity. Poor Linus is just too overloaded as the sole proprietor of Linux.

    What is all the fuss? IBM will be fined. A rogue programmer goes to prison. Linux? Well, it will survive and prosper.

  278. sabotage by polished+look+2 · · Score: 1
    I'd bet on SCO for that proof, if I were you. So far, we've seen them armed for bear: Novell thought they had SCO, and now look like fools, then OSS types thought the evidence didn't exist, and now we know they were wrong. I'd guess that SCO has affadavits from the original programmers for the code they showed to the analysts.

    This is a real, big problem and the question remains who, exactly, put it into the kernel source and under what pretext. I am hesitant to believe IBM did it because they take measures to see that this doesn't happen, unless, of course, a disgruntled IBM employee put it in there and yes, dare I bring the word up again, its looking more and more like an intentional act of sabotage.

  279. Are we talking about SCO or Scientology? by leereyno · · Score: 1

    Was there a merger between SCO and the Ron-Bots that no one told me about?

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
    1. Re:Are we talking about SCO or Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :Are we talking about SCO or Scientology?

      Yes!

  280. Re:Lawyer's Algorithm: Fix bug by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 2, Funny
    someones_assets+= sue(ridiculous_sum);

    should be:

    someones_assets -= sue(ridiculous_sum);

    I wouldn't jump to conclusions. One can't implicitly see whether someone_assets is the sue-ers assets or the sue-ees assets, or the type(s) of the variable(s).

    Looks like it's really just sue-dough code.

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health.
  281. Treble Damages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Possible New tactic.
    IBM puts 200Mil in trust, pending case settlement, and a lien put on SCO realizable assets for triple the amount ponied up by IBM. Be interesting what the other party can raise in secured, bankable assets.
    .
    In return, all claimed or offending code is published on Slashdot and other forums for public review and comment when the bonds have been posted.

    If said claim is disproven, defendant gets triple damages.
    Chances are the public at large will find prior art or similar code - and be able to identify its TRUE origin.

    CVS trees only tell half the story; and not what else is out there in the public domain. No programmer can swear on oath that there is no code like this 80 lines of code EVER written anywhere else in the world that performs substantially the same job/function. (assuming code is optimised and logical)

    The unjustifiable delay for not posting the code ,is maybe hoping for a perverted trial outcome based on some flawed technicality, that avoids critical peer review by the community at large.

    The Judge in Germany had the right idea, clearly state your case or desist. And the timeframe was right too. Perhaps this is why the US court system is rated #14 in the world.

  282. Re: Consider this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Er... not quite...

    it's not because the test is scaled and rebalanced to have this effect -- of course it is. "Mental age" has no meaning without measuring the average score at each age and comparing.

    doesn't really have to do with intelligence at large -- yes, it does. Well, maybe intelligence is the wrong word; "mental agility" would be better. Real IQ tests simply measure how proficient you are in various well-defined areas of mental ability, such as visual, spatial, verbal, etc. The fact that they give consistent results means that they must measure something.

  283. A single point in time proves nothing. by fireman+sam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can take 80 lines of code from the Linux Kernel and dump it into my Good Thing(TM) Kernel. The start jumping up and down saying "Linus stole my code". Show the two pieces and have the experts saying "the evidence looks damning".

    What we need is the codes history. From both sides we need:

    1. who created the code (ie checked in)
    2. When was the code created.

    The winner will simply be the codebase who had it first.

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
  284. Sleeping with Kirsten Dunst by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Oh, well, she probably snores anyway and is a terrible nag in private. (-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Sleeping with Kirsten Dunst by Dr.+Photo · · Score: 1

      Oh, well, she probably snores anyway and is a terrible nag in private. (-:

      Sour grapes, Leon? ;-)

  285. Very funny! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    80 lines of code? Come on CmdrTaco! It's not April 1st anymore!!!!

  286. 80 lines total, or N sections of length = 80 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The story subtitle seems to imply that it was 80 lines total... my read was that it's multiple blocks of size 80 lines or less. Big difference.

  287. Good point... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Time to transfer some assets and go on the dole? (-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  288. A Simple Solution by BenZoate · · Score: 1

    Here is the best way out of this...Old School Style.......

    After School Tuesday, by the bike racks, SCO vs. Linux. Winner gets the girl...er make taht the code.

  289. Re:Has anybody considered - a different slant by pVoid · · Score: 1

    At which point: the (appeals) judge's words will be final.

  290. What is the ground speed of an african swallow? by rdewald · · Score: 1

    In my humble opinion, some software packages are worth what I trade for the licenses (GPL--development mods, bug reports), some of them aren't ($$$---Windows, MS Office). In any case, licensing fees are a trivial part of the total cost of ownership for my systems. I always pay the piper, it just inconvenient not to.

    Your assertion that converting digital music from one format to another either confers licensure or obviates it is pretty funny. One might as well claim that since the bits reside on one's own storage media that they are similarly no longer subject to intellectual property laws.

    I walk by guys crouched over blankets selling Nelly CD's and Matrix Reload DVD's here on 125th st in NYC that are your philosophical brethren. Rock on, bro, ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

    I get paid for my work, so does everyone working for me. It all works out. Money is just scorekeeping.

    My point was that it seems difficult to suddenly take a project, GNU/Linux, developed and distributed under one licensing scheme, GPL, and suddenly decide that another licensing scheme is in effect. (Apologies to ESR) One just can't take a talisman from the bazaar and build a cathedral around it.

    --
    The best way to do is to be.
  291. Re:What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + G by firewood · · Score: 1
    Same problem when downloading any linux software with a GPL license.

    The GPL is a license granted by the copyright holder. How do you know who is the actual copyright holder for every line of code in linux? How do you know that that copyright holder actually put his/her/it's lines of code under the GPL? In some jurisdictions a minor might not have the right to grant legal licenses (for code they've uploaded or submitted) because only their parents of guardians have that right. Adults under some employment contracts also may not have the right to either owning the copyright itself, or the right to grant any license, without the approval of the corporate legal department. Just because a item of code is aggregated with a license does not mean that a license was granted by someone with the legal right to do so. Does anyone have written (or other evidence admissible in court) for every line in the GPL-ware they distribute?

  292. Comments by GordoSlasher · · Score: 1
    Working at AT&T many years ago I was privy to the System V code. At the time comments were sparse. In one section of code I actually saw one single comment:
    /* this is a comment */

    If the code in question has any comments at all I find it hard to believe it was taken from System V.

  293. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Our government encourages healthy competition, not unethical behavior."

    What planet are you from??? What happens to humongous conglomerate monopolies like Micro$oft that seek to control the life of every consumer and every market, and destroy all competition? Absolutely nothing. All they get is a slap on the wrist (if anything). After that, every law is still made in their favor. And even when executives from Enron to American Airlines screw their employees, it's in the news for a couple of days, and then conveniently forgotten (especially if they have ties to the Big Guy.)

    I agree that the laws were originally intended to foster healthy competition as that is the only way to ensure what is best for consumers and society in general. Lately however, lawmakers seem to have only the interests of the largest businesses in mind. Witness everything from the DMCA, to the secretive ruling by the FCC of late to allow the largest conglomerates to exercise even greater control over the media. Absolutely disgusting.

  294. Re:From the GPL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SCO is claiming copyright violation when they themselves have released the offending code under the GPL (they are offering two flavors of linux).

    How can you have the exact same code with two different licenses?

    SCO gave up whatever legal rights they had to "their" code when they decided to offer linux; they have no case.

  295. You might investgate: required notice and GPL by NZheretic · · Score: 1
    Firstly, yes, there are a few people who do read your site and greatly appreciate your efforts. As a paralegal I know that your webblog does not represent an offical legal opinion in itself, but your views are better qualfied than most and the references you track down are of great value.

    Your correct about the solution, but : How can the offending code be removed if the offending source is not identifed?

    Thanks to martin_lvnv yahoo posts....

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/411.html
    ... serves notice upon the infringer, not less than 48 hours before such fixation, identifying the work and the specific time and source of its first transmission, and declaring an intention to secure copyright in the work

    Another http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html
    Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

    Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
    What is reasonably sufficient time and information?

    If the linux kernel is split up and distributed on a website/ftp site on a file by file basis, SCO would have to identify the individual offending file.

    As for the liability of Linus and the kernel developers...
    http://www.pnpa.com/legal/handbook2/copyrights.htm
    When no notice is given on a work, there is a possibility that someone will believe the work is not subject to copyright. This is the case of the innocent infringer. The innocent infringer will have no liability for actual or statutory damages

    Also, what about the downstream effects of the GPL implict licensing. SCO has sold and distributed under the terms of the GPL license. That covers everything GPL'ed up to and in including the kernel-2.4.19 . SCO have admitted that they knew about the "common" source months before they started the lawsuit, but kept selling and distributing openlinux. Does the former action imply implicit consent? Remember that both Caldera and SCO have been distributing GPL'ed source code for almost a decade - How could they deny that SCO and their lawyers don't understand the terms conditions?

    For the current development kernel, it's currently still in beta development and is not being deployed in a commercial capacity. There is effectively no damage to SCO's Unix "Market-share" and SCO's disclosure and proof of "ownership" of the offending source code would allow Linus to remove it from the source repostory. The missing gaps would quickly be rewritten.

    Since The SCO Group now admits that it does not own Novell's Unix patents, the rewrite becomes a much easier job.

  296. Where's the Monterey contract? by mec · · Score: 1

    Disclosure: I am short SCOX.

    Everyone seems to be focusing on "historic" unix and not on the project Monterey, which is pretty much where they've said the violation comes from. All that they would have to show is that IBM took IP from that project that they didn't have the rights to and submitted it into the Linux kernel.

    My question:

    Did SCO enter into a contract with IBM about the intellectual property rights for Project Monterey?

    I'm hoping that somebody is going to ask Darl McBride that question in public, and soon.

    If SCO has such a contract, why did they not include a copy of that contract in their complaint against IBM?

    They include much older contracts in their exhibits, but they do not show any contract relating to the specific project where they allege that the breeches came from.

  297. Re: Consider this by RedBear · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Mensa membership apparently doesn't require you to be smart enough to know that you shouldn't brag about your IQ in a forum with ~ half a million readers.

    IQ, a quotient based on a battery of tests on such things as math, reading, logic, and spatial skills, is not the same thing as Social Intelligence. Social Intelligence might also be referred to as "street smarts" or knowing how to deal with people. It's quite possible to have one without even a shred of the other. As most of us geeks know. So yes, Mensa doesn't necessarily require you to have the "smarts" to know not to brag about your IQ, but that doesn't prove the original poster isn't "intelligent" in those other ways. In fact, he could even be a genius.

    And now something for our moderators: Who's this SCO character I keep hearing about? Was he the bad guy in "Hackers"?
  298. SCO-- another possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many of us are sway by identical comment, but how does it prove teh code travel from SCO to Linux?
    We can certainly explain the identical code by saying that there aren't many different way to display a charcater in C, so good programmer may come up with identical alog. to deal with similar program. Now, how about thew variable name? Does all geek follow the same naming convention? i.e. Variable to made to help the programmer understand what the variable do. What should we name a variable linux_is_great=True into something else? For the comments, it is a good programming practice to add the comments in the critical place so other understand the function of each block. In how many place we can place comment except beginning and the end. As for wording, how many ways you can say "SCO sucks" in geek style? How about geek culture?
    Anyhow, the whole idea of patenting an alog is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous!

  299. Re:Has anybody considered - a different slant by dbrutus · · Score: 1

    Actually, the final words will likely be issued by the Supreme Court, either in a judgment or in a denial of cert.

    As a theoretical matter, Congress can override and so can the President but the last time the President did it, it was Andrew Jackson and Congress has *never* exercised its override powers.

  300. Linux code, or, ugh... GNU/Linux code? by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 1

    I notice they talk about stolen code in Linux, but I don't see a specific claim (have I not looked hard enough?) from SCO saying it is in the Linux kernel. Could it be they're talking about some utility (a la 'ls') or something else which is packaged with the Linux kernel which may, in fact, be the property of SCO?

  301. OT: How to prevent closed source from stealing GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ed code...
    M$ keep parroting they RESPECT IP rights. I just wonder with LEGAL protection no one can reverse-enigneering their code, so how OFTEN they steal code from other, especially their competitor including GPLed code?
    Maybe we can start a class civil action, and M$ is guilt until proven innocence--- you know M$ has a very bad recordin stealing other's idea/or real code. Any lawyer out there. Does KDE and WinXP look surprisingly similar...
    They NEVER dream of their weapon can turn against them. Maybe we should try....

  302. WTF by RevSmiley · · Score: 1

    What the fuck does either George Bush have to do with this other than it makes them sound evil? The G.W.Bush(s) couldn't find Linux or Open Source with both hands if they were bit by them on their asses let alone the GNU. One more useless throw away comment that doesn't add any value to any dicussion than to vent the authors dislike of a personality or two. I have never heard one quote which would indicate either Bush feels that "ownership" of an idea or thing held in common by the "people" was evil, "un-american" or some other such dunderheaded thinking. You must be thinking of Bill "you assholes are stealing my software and I have more money than god" Gates.

    --
    As you can see I don't care about my karma.
  303. Re: umm this applies to all software by cookd · · Score: 1

    My bad. Good point! There are many projects with heavy industry backing, and that helps.

    --
    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
  304. SCO copying gpl code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what if SCO is copying linux into their own code and claiming it is going the other way? how do we prove when they first wrote it? we can prove when it was put into linux but what is their proof?

  305. Re:Lawyer's Algorithm: Fix bug by zodar · · Score: 1

    Holy crap that was pun-ishment. You know, it's not the horrible, horrible pun that I find funny, but the character of the person who thought, "Dear God, what an awful pun. I better say it out loud/post it!"

    On topic: sue(ridiculous_sum) might return a negative value, reducing someones_assets. You're right about the variable type; if it's unsigned, well, that answers that question.

    But:

    if ( sue(ridiculous_sum) > 0 )
    ++lawyers_assets;
    else
    ++lawyers_assets;

  306. This makes me... by future+assassin · · Score: 1
    want to use linux more. Fri is pay day and this means a new hd gets loaded with Linux.

    Like Bush/War supporters this is SCO
    http://www.futureassassin.com/typical.jpg

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  307. Sorry, I don't do business with convicted felons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yes, Microsoft is a convicted felon. Neither do I associate with convicted felons. But hey, if _you_ want to, more power to you.

  308. Vicariously, perhaps... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...but I don't see what's so special about Kirsten, myself. I have heaps of prettier friends and rellies. She may well be a great gal, but I don't know it. (-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  309. SCO is right on this... open your eyes ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't need an NDA to see that... How can we be so blind ! SCO CAN NOT issue a lawsuit on false claims to IBM BECAUSE THEY KNOW IBM *CAN* CHECK. IBM has both source tree of System 5 and UnixWare.

    We are looking at the wrong side. It's very simple to end this (FUD). Did you ask yourself why IBM did not came up saing: We have checked the issue and there is nothing from SysV or UnixWare in the Linux Kernel !
    They are not violating anything if they say just that.

    IBM just denied because they do not have "evidence"???. That is for the court. But as I said they know if SCO is right or wrong because they have everything they need to check that.

    Dear friends... SCO is right on this, and by their attitude IBM just confirmed it.

    Do not be so naive to belive we will replace that code because we will not have that chance then.
    And 80 lines is enough to prove they are right. It does not meter it's just 0.005 %.

    We are loosing time.

  310. sheltered and ingorant of reality by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    being 'sheltered and ingorant of reality' are signs of autism or psycosis, quite common in 'intelegent' people. (they don't waste there time with reality).

    Both Einestine and Newton were sheltered and ingorant of reality

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  311. testing intelegence. by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    How do we know dogs are more intelegent than cats and cats are more intelegent than fish and a fish is more intelegent than a stone?

    You can find key skills and work out how good someone is at that skill.
    You could test empathy, visualisation etc...

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  312. Re:IBM will be punished, but Linux will still pros by nutznboltz · · Score: 1
    An excerpt from
    http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030606S0039
    IBM, for its part, has said it doesn't intend to respond to SCO's threat. âoeWe believe our contact is perpetual and irrevocable,â an IBM spokeswoman said. âoeWe've already paid for it, and there is nothing else we need to do.â

  313. Mensan's suck by thejackol · · Score: 1

    Mensan's are probably the dumbest people I've come across so far. It's not just a swollen head and a "I am better than you" attitude, they're born assholes.

    So if someone brags to me that [s]he is a Mensan, I'd rather not get to know them. I prefer being known as stupid with a low IQ. I can whip their ass when push comes to shove and that's all matters.

  314. Re:What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Repeat after me: "If I repeat my claim/lie often enough, it will become true/truth."

    Ok, you are wellcome:

    If I repeat my claim/lie often enough, it will become true/truth.
    If I repeat my claim/lie often enough, it will become true/truth.
    If I repeat my claim/lie often enough, it will become true/truth.

    You are a moron. You are a moron...

    I tried better, but got comment: "Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted."
    This is clearly a combibnation of slashdot censure with / SCO conspiration.

  315. FAIR USE POLICY by Gutar · · Score: 1

    I am not a lawyer, but I thought there were some kind of "fair use" statues that allow small parts of copyrighted material to be used by others. I know this applies to music, since, for example, certain chord progressions, are so common as to be outside the right of any one person to copyright. It would seem to me that 80 lines of code, out of how many tens of thousands of lines?, would fall into that category. That argument should apply regardless of the success or failure of the argument the SCO might actually be using Linux, or other 3rd party code. It would be very useful to determine the exact nature of the code in question. It is hard to imagine that such a small fraction of what may be Unix code, could be the keystone of the SCO's entire business.

  316. Can SCO Prove they did not Steal the Code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can SCO prove they did not steal the Code? Isn't it possible that someone from SCO saw the code in Linux and integrated it into SCO? Hmmm.

  317. Re: Consider this by stanmann · · Score: 1

    Uh, people like that don't join mensa. My IQ is in the 135-140 range, and I worked with several people who surpass me there(it comes up in conversation when you are a computer programmer). The general consensus was that joining mensa was a masturbatory thing.

    --
    Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  318. I figure this has already been suggested but... by rivendahl · · Score: 1

    Some people claim (ESR being one of them) that obtaining the Unix source code is not difficult. In that case, has anyone thought to obtain a copy and compare it to the Linux source? I'm sure someone has thought of it, but has anyone done it? If so, what is verdict?

    Rivendahl

    --
    ... there is nothing that has not already been thought ...
  319. ABERDEEN, $FRIENDs $OF $BILL by threadsafe_r · · Score: 1

    So some Aberdeen anal ysts have viewed the code and said it looks very similar. More fodder IMHO from Screw Castrate & Offend, FOBs. FMS & FSCO.

  320. 80 LINES is a major block of code?! by daveman_1 · · Score: 1

    Since when is eighty lines a major block of anything? They really believe eighty lines of code(some of them are even COMMENTS?) is worth a BILLION DOLLARS? Every programmer who has ever written a single line of code for work should be outraged at how poorly they are getting paid. Seriously, even if their claims are completely legitimate, the code thief probably did this without authorization anyhow. It's amazing they are making such a big deal out of something this silly.

    --
    Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
  321. I Confess, Already! by 4of12 · · Score: 1

    After all this time I must apologize for my grievous commission of this sin.

    It was indeed me that copied those 80 lines into the Linux source code.

    On 30 February 2000 I did:

    for f in /usr/src/linux/*.[ch] ; do
    dd bs=32 count=1 if=/dev/random of=$f
    done

    (submit patch to Linus)
    and I am truly sorry for having cause so much trouble.

    I must say, in all fairness though, that people have made the accusation previously that my kind of action has been going on for quite some time and not just by me.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  322. Stop prempting your karma raitings. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Everytime I get mod points I will go looking for comments like this and modding them down.

    Get on with what you have to say but stop the "poor me" game.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  323. Re:SCO's secret plan..*shhh* trade secret!!! by mgessner · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think you forgot:

    6. PROFIT!!!

    --
    "Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
  324. Talk for yourself buddy. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    I want to protect fair use and I respect scrupulously the copyrights of music owners (who screw artists, but that is another matter). I have every single CD for every single Ogg file you could find in my computers, all of them have been ripped not downloaded. I tried free mp3 music but I found it boring and lacking artistic quality.

    I do not use propietary software. Yes, that means fewer games, so what? Why6 do you assume that using open source software makes you a copyright abuser?

    As I said, talk for yourself, I take offense at people like you that assume that everybody is preaching one thing while doing the other.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  325. Open letter to the rats. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Daer rats,

    This letter outlines a procedure in which you don't need to eat all the cheese that is in my fridge.

    I hope you will see the advantages of us arriving to an amicable solution, this is the moral right thing to do otherwise we will both starve. I will ignore that you are selfish bastardsI and I will acknowledge your positive traits. For example you don't want to eat my bread also, that speaks volumes about your integrity.

    Whay are you not moving out of my fridge?

    What do you mean with my cat is a panzy?

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  326. I just won't let SCO see my .config by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not use stock kernels for anything, Why could the companies using linux refuse to provide disclose what is in the kernels they use? wouldn't this keep non-distributors safe?

  327. Consider an analogy ... by TheMeld · · Score: 1

    Lets say Coca-Cola's secret recepie makes it out into some free, comunity maintained cookbook. This cookbook is freely copied and contributed to and modified by millions of people around the world. Numerous people have their own variants of this cookbook that they have added personal recipies to and distrbuted as such variants.

    Now, someone finds that there is a bona fide violation of trade secret, that coca cola's recipie is in part of one of the cook book's many soda recipies (bear with the strained analogy here ...). This is discovered and conceded to by a large publishing company that distributes nicely bound printed versions of this cook book.

    SCO's is asserting that people must cease all use of Linux whatsoever, rather than revealing which pieces of Linux are in violation and allowing those to be fixed. This is analogous to Coca Cola asserting that, rather than revealing which recipies are in violation, people must throw away the whole cook book and never look at a single recipie inside it ever again.

    I believe that there are some important legal principles that are relevant here, and one of them is the right to know the crime with which you are being accused. If SCO is going to attack any users of Linux, those users have a right to know what they did that was in violation. The cops aren't allowed to arrest you and throw you in jail saying only "you violated some traffic laws driving to and from work some time in the last few years." It is patently obvious that the vast majority of the linux code was not stolen from proprietary sources, so SCO cannot make any claim that the whole of linux is in violation and must be removed from existence.

    It sure would be nice of some one ofthe people who signed that NDA and got to see the code would anonymously post enough information about what bits they were shown so that people could figure out what the code was.

    --
    -Cheetah
  328. Not a very good argument by spitzak · · Score: 1

    While I agree that the chances of 80 identical lines of code in completely independently written stuff, even 3 million lines of it, is vanishingly small, your analysis is quite broken because it does not take into account the way C code works.

    Say the first line is "int block_number". Your estimate that there might be 10 ways of writing this is probably way low, I would say there are about 100 possible first lines. But once this matches, the odds are very high that a later line will use the text "block_number" in the same places. So even if a line can be written 100 ways it reduces the ways the next lines can be written to maybe 2. So instead of your 10^80 estimate, I would guess more like a 100^20 estimate. Still astronomically small.

  329. Alleged contamination accidental or on purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With big bucks at stake, one could suspect sabotage, but other explanations are more likely.

    Bona fide Free Software contributors are obviously not knowingly going to sabotage the thing they are working hard to build, so if there actually are 80 (contiguous?) lines of code in Linux that SCO actually owns some rights to, we can conclude that they must have been included by accident, perhaps based on a misunderstanding about where the code originated.

    Obviously, if there had been intent to insert "stolen" code, it would not have been used verbatim. More likely there was an intent to preserve credit/attribution (do the comments contain names or initials or email addresses?), even if not explicit.

    On the other hand, who would knowingly contaminate Linux? It would be a dastardly thing to do, so it would take a real scoundrel to do it.

    But not just anyone could get into a position to do it. It is too paranoid to think that CVS has been hacked to insert offending code without a record of the real submission. So the facts should come out.

    To get code inserted, you'd have to have commit privileges, or be well trusted by someone who does. For significant code, the trust would have to be both technical and moral.

    The technical aspect means the contributor was probably either an FS developer or a developer working on similar proprietary code. In the latter case, it could be an employee acting as scoundrel or as well-meaning FS contributor with mistaken understanding of the legal status of the contributed code, or possibly a disgruntled employee with a misguided Robin Hood motivation, actually intending to "steal" from his/her employer and "give" to the FS community.

    The most likely explanation is a simple misunderstanding of the legal status of the code snippet, and it seems not unlikely that SCO itself is deluded about that.

    The only really clear aspect of the situation is SCO's intent to take maximum advantage of what was probably an honest mistake (if it actually was a mistake at all) regarding a miniscule fraction of total Linux code. Whatever business future they think they can have, good will must not be a big factor in their plans

  330. Re:IBM will be punished, but Linux will still pros by juan2074 · · Score: 1
    SCO has clearly found damning evidence that some code in Linux has been stolen.

    No, SCO has not. They have not shown anything clearly. They have not proven that any code came from SCO and was put into Linux.

    Show us the code from SCO, show us the code from Linux, and prove that SCO originally created the code in question, and that Linux got the code from someone who had no connection to SCO / Caldera.

    In the court case, SCO has to prove that their own code was put into Linux by someone attached to IBM.

  331. Question of Rights by ebresie · · Score: 1

    Okay...in keeping with the common thread...what are the legal rights regarding displaying or showing of proprietary information?

    If something is made available to the public improperly, then is the displayed content made invalidated since it would be difficult to take back every CD, book, CVS tree that contains this material

    Are there time limitations on how long something in the public eye exists in the public and still keep it proprietary?

    If Calderis/SCO inserted the code, then would the case be thrown out?

    If it is in fact just comments and not code, is it still covered in this instance, since although the idea may be present, the actual functionality is not necessarily included and would not effect the actual OS itself.

    --

    Eric B
    ebresie@gmail.com
  332. Microsoft antitrust and Al Gore?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From EET article: "Many observers believe SCO's case is bolstered by the fact that it is represented by high-powered attorney David Boies, who prosecuted the Microsoft antitrust case and represented Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election vote-counting scandal."

    Heh, right. Look out! Two-time loser David Boies is on the case.

  333. Lazy? by Mensa+Babe · · Score: 1

    Now lets count the number of lines in every .c file in linux-2.4.20.tar.bz2 ...

    TMPFILE=`mktemp /tmp/$0.XXXXXXX` for i in $(for i in $(for i in $(find ./|grep "\.c"|grep -v Documentation);do cat $i|wc -l;done);do echo $i;done);do echo -n $i+>>${TMPFILE};done;echo "0">>${TMPFILE};echo quit>>${TMPFILE};bc -q ${TMPFILE};rm ${TMPFILE}

    Which gives us 3332935 (including comments but hey we're lazy).

    You call it lazy? I would call this lazier:

    cat `find -name \*.c`|wc -l

    Call me old-fashioned, but somehow I do not really think typing 933% of the sufficient number of characters is lazy indeed. I would rather call it not lazy at all. Fancy? Sure. Entertaining? Of course. Smart? No doubt. Intelligent? Why not. (Well, maybe not counting 'find ./|grep "\.c"' used instead of 'find -name \*.c'.) But do I think it is lazy? That I do surely not.

    What **argv size limit?

    Of course, as I am sure all of the intelligent Slashdotters have already noticed, my command will not work everywhere. In that case, let me propose this:

    find -name \*.c -exec cat {} \;|wc -l

    which I still find much lazier.

    Other than that, I agree.

    --
    Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
  334. What are the damages for 80 lines of unused code? by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 1

    My guess is that these 80 lines are in some obscure library, probabliy in a function that is never even called...

    Obscure logging code in libOctalEncoder.so ?

    ---- The following is my firm belief regarding this mess:

    This is a FUD campaign -> SCO is a paid Microsoft sock puppet and this entire dance is being coreographed to discredit Linux and raise fear, create uncertainty and doubt for managers that would otherwise be considering a Linux solution.

    Microsoft is paying sco through 8 digit licensing deals and probably the manipulation of SCO's stock through an obscure holding company controlled by Microsoft and/or Microsoft insiders...

    --
    The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
  335. I have an idea to correct this problem.. by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 1

    Perhaps it is time that the Linux community show SCO / Microsoft what the power of the community truly is. That power is derived from our "We Are Legion" truth of presence.

    Since this is an obvious legal attack to generate FUD and discredit Linux, our counter-attack should be in kind. How would SCO handle 10,000 simultaneous individual lawsuits from independent developers and administrators for damages related to fraudulently discrediting our primary source of work and income (Linux).

    To be more clear, everyone should use their own lawyer (no class action). Let us send a LEGION of lawyers at these assholes for pulling this fraudulent stunt!

    --
    The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
  336. Well, that's obvious. by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    But that doesn't change the fact that, in a case involving trade secret, you don't make your secrets public. What if it turns out the secrets ARENT in linux? That's for the court to decide, not you.. and if they release their secrets, and it turns out there is no violation, they have now LOST the secret protection they want.

    SO yeah, sco has no case, blah blah blah.. but they ARE proceeding apropriately as far as trade secret cases go.

  337. Depends by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    entirely on what those 80 lines contain.

    80 lines of code isn't much; and it could be // Comment here // Comment here // Joe sux dik
    main (
    int argc,
    char **argv) {
    for (x=1;
    xy;
    x++;
    _

    etc... with VERY little original work in it.

    I'm not speculating on what this code does or does not have, but to be a serious copyright violation, it would have to have some significance, and not just be a few lines of header, or something.

  338. Of course I understand it! by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    It's a 77x4 block of line noise. (-:

    Truth be told, there are details in it that I don't understand (I only know enough PERL to get by), but its author does a fair job of explaining it. My preferred flavour of line noise is <? echo "guess"; ?>

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  339. Re:this one is kinda hard to prove on either case. by peter · · Score: 1

    I mean.... how hard is it to do a:

    date --set="-3 years"
    vi whatever.cc
    date --set="+3 years"


    Changing your system time? That's a lot harder than
    touch -m -d "-3 years" whatever.c
    --
    #define X(x,y) x##y
    Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes , .ca)
  340. Re:Lawyer's Algorithm: Fix bug by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 1
    Holy crap

    Jeez-a-lou, Frank, is that you?

    that was pun-ishment.

    Hey, even Pavarotti has to clear his throat once in a while (old joke - if you don't know it, don't ask).

    You know, it's not the horrible, horrible pun that I find funny, but the character of the person who thought, "Dear God, what an awful pun. I better say it out loud/post it!"

    Oh, I'd never have said that out loud. But post it at Slashdot ....

    I agree with your reduction. No condition testing is required - no matter what:

    ++lawyers_assets;

    My battles with my ex proved that.

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health.
  341. Re: Your offtopic troll by g_bit · · Score: 1

    Harrr! Mod me down matey, I love it!

  342. Re:this one is kinda hard to prove on either case. by scoobywan · · Score: 1

    Good point, I always forget about touch :).

  343. C-oBOL by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    One of my funnier tragicomedy recollections is of a CoBOL programmer writing in C:

    cursor_x = 12;
    cursor_y = 10;
    position_cursor ();
    label_text = "Name:"
    display_label ();
    field_type = ALPHABETIC;
    field_length = 20;
    display_field_background (); ...etc...

    WRT to scoping, recursion etc, he just didn't "get" it. Ever.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  344. Learn to spell, fuckhead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's "philosopher". Verily, you, kind sir, are a fucking idiot.