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."
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!
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
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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!
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
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.