SCO Shows 80 Lines of Evidence?

When... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-08 01:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

will this end?

Re:When... by I_Want_This_ID · 2003-06-08 01:24 · Score: 5, Funny

##loop for(i=0; i100; i++) { ##really common algorithm ... } SCO: Look, they copied our f'ing code
Re:When... by nickos · 2003-06-08 03:43 · 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!?!
Re:When... by koko775 · 2003-06-08 06:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

RTFA. The comments are identical. However, who's to say that the code wasn't lifted from Linux?
Re:When... by konquered · 2003-06-08 12:11 · 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."
Re:When... by wwwillem · 2003-06-08 15:34 · 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...
Re:When... by dbrutus · 2003-06-08 16:30 · 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.

Has anybody considered by gazbo · 2003-06-08 01:22 · 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.

Re:Has anybody considered by WeiszNet · 2003-06-08 01:24 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by dfeist · 2003-06-08 01:31 · 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.
Re: Has anybody considered by Black+Parrot · 2003-06-08 01:39 · 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
Re:Has anybody considered by bheading · 2003-06-08 01:41 · 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 ?
Re:Has anybody considered by aborchers · 2003-06-08 01:43 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by Your+Anus · 2003-06-08 01:56 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by be-fan · 2003-06-08 01:58 · 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...
Re:Has anybody considered by dnoyeb · 2003-06-08 01:59 · 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....
Re:Has anybody considered by Gnulix · 2003-06-08 02:07 · 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 :-)
Re:Has anybody considered by cookd · 2003-06-08 02:09 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by surprise_audit · 2003-06-08 02:12 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by Your+Anus · 2003-06-08 02:14 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by surprise_audit · 2003-06-08 02:18 · 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
Re:Has anybody considered by EpsCylonB · 2003-06-08 02:27 · 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.).
Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-08 02:34 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by John+Hasler · 2003-06-08 02:36 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by perdelucena · 2003-06-08 02:57 · 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
Re:Has anybody considered by SnowZero · 2003-06-08 03:02 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by Datafage · 2003-06-08 03:03 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by the+gnat · 2003-06-08 03:04 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by c0dedude · 2003-06-08 03:08 · 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?
Re:Has anybody considered by Fished · 2003-06-08 03:15 · 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
Re:Has anybody considered by ReconRich · 2003-06-08 03:17 · 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
Re:Has anybody considered by gmack · 2003-06-08 03:29 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by treat · 2003-06-08 03:36 · 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?"
Re:Has anybody considered by magic · 2003-06-08 03:40 · 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
Re:Has anybody considered by RenQuanta · 2003-06-08 03:49 · 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?
Re:Has anybody considered by Nucleon500 · 2003-06-08 03:56 · 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
Re:Has anybody considered by timmyf2371 · 2003-06-08 04:03 · 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
Re:Has anybody considered by pVoid · 2003-06-08 04:04 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by schon · 2003-06-08 04:07 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by squiggleslash · 2003-06-08 04:14 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by DickBreath · 2003-06-08 04:19 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by kubrick · 2003-06-08 04:26 · 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
Re:Has anybody considered by tkg · 2003-06-08 04:46 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-08 04:47 · 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...
Re:Has anybody considered by Rabid+Penguin · 2003-06-08 05:01 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by Fished · 2003-06-08 05:28 · 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
Re:Has anybody considered by Minna+Kirai · 2003-06-08 06:02 · 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"
Re:Has anybody considered by stwrtpj · 2003-06-08 06:15 · 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)
Re:Has anybody considered by Minna+Kirai · 2003-06-08 06:16 · 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"
Re:Has anybody considered by hammock · 2003-06-08 06:31 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by Antaeus+Feldspar · 2003-06-08 06:33 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by Error27 · 2003-06-08 10:10 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by 73939133 · 2003-06-08 10:37 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by Sphere1952 · 2003-06-08 11:44 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by Crispy+Critters · 2003-06-08 13:12 · 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.
Re:Has anybody considered by anthony_dipierro · 2003-06-08 17:15 · 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.

An Entire Unix Kernel... by doi · 2003-06-08 01:22 · 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?

Re: An Entire Unix Kernel... by Black+Parrot · 2003-06-08 01:34 · Score: 5, Funny

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

It's written in perl.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:An Entire Unix Kernel... by bj8rn · 2003-06-08 01:41 · 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
Re: An Entire Unix Kernel... by xScruffx · 2003-06-08 01:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

xScruffx
Re:An Entire Unix Kernel... by $0.02 · 2003-06-08 02:05 · 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)
Re:An Entire Unix Kernel... by cperciva · 2003-06-08 02:06 · Score: 2, Funny

I can do better than that...

#include <kernel.c>

--
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Re: An Entire Unix Kernel... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2003-06-08 02:45 · 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.

FUD! by j0nkatz · 2003-06-08 01:24 · 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'!!!!

Re:FUD! by sebi · 2003-06-08 01:33 · 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!
Re:FUD! by Timesprout · 2003-06-08 01:39 · 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
Re:FUD! by DaBj · 2003-06-08 01:45 · 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
Re:FUD! by SkArcher · 2003-06-08 01:50 · 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 /.
Re:FUD! by surprise_audit · 2003-06-08 02:25 · 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?
Re:FUD! by the+gnat · 2003-06-08 03:30 · 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.
Re:FUD! by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2003-06-08 03:32 · 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.

Sarcasm mode on by RighteousFunby · 2003-06-08 01:26 · 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

Re:Sarcasm mode on by Fishstick · 2003-06-08 01:37 · 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.

Re:80 lines... by Neophytus · 2003-06-08 01:26 · Score: 4, Funny

They prefer to call it an easter egg.

Why should I be worried? by gilesjuk · 2003-06-08 01:27 · 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.

Mac OSX based on Linux? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-08 01:27 · 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!

Re:Mac OSX based on Linux? by DaBj · 2003-06-08 02:05 · 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

Well then by Timesprout · 2003-06-08 01:27 · 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

Use SCO's Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-08 01:28 · 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/

Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by CodeMaster · 2003-06-08 01:45 · 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
Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-08 01:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Isn't this called a DoS attack? ...Ok, I'm new here.
Re:Use SCO's Bandwidth by stor · 2003-06-08 16:08 · 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"

80 contiguous lines? by jagilbertvt · 2003-06-08 01:30 · 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.

Re: 80 contiguous lines? by Black+Parrot · 2003-06-08 03:27 · 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

How do you put the worms back in the can? by rdewald · 2003-06-08 01:32 · 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.

Sheesh. by vadim_t · 2003-06-08 01:33 · 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.

Re:Sheesh. by Grax · 2003-06-08 01:39 · 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

What a name by Timesprout · 2003-06-08 01:34 · 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

David Boises loosing streak by autopr0n · 2003-06-08 01:34 · 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.

Lawyer by FTL · 2003-06-08 01:34 · 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.

Re:Lawyer by the+eric+conspiracy · 2003-06-08 01:56 · 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.
Re:Lawyer by jenkin+sear · 2003-06-08 02:10 · 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.

80 Lines of code = less revenue? by edgrale · 2003-06-08 01:35 · 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

How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ? by phre4k · 2003-06-08 01:35 · 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"

Are the 80 lines contiguous ... ? by Ninja+Programmer · 2003-06-08 01:36 · 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.

Re:Are the 80 lines contiguous ... ? by ArmorFiend · 2003-06-08 02:17 · 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. ...

Where's the truth? by Scalli0n · 2003-06-08 01:37 · 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

80 lines Come on by Unleashd · 2003-06-08 01:37 · 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!

Wow by greppling · 2003-06-08 01:41 · 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.

New defense tactic needed by Chilles · 2003-06-08 01:42 · 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!

Does Linus et al keep track of code submitters by swb · 2003-06-08 01:43 · 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?

Re:Does Linus et al keep track of code submitters by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-08 02:04 · 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.
Re:Does Linus et al keep track of code submitters by mce · 2003-06-08 03:01 · 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.
Re:Does Linus et al keep track of code submitters by swb · 2003-06-08 03:28 · 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.

Re: 80 lines... by Black+Parrot · 2003-06-08 01:44 · 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

And now.. read again SCO claims by MrNop · 2003-06-08 01:48 · 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 !

There is an audit trail, you know by b1t+r0t · 2003-06-08 01:56 · 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

Wasn't a good test by confused+one · 2003-06-08 01:57 · 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.

NDA & Comment Question by attobyte · 2003-06-08 01:57 · 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

I also have found similarities by Dodge+This · 2003-06-08 01:59 · 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.

It's The Canopy Group by vandan · 2003-06-08 01:59 · 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?

Eureka! by Black+Parrot · 2003-06-08 02:01 · 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

Two previous post provide sufficient defense... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-08 02:02 · 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

Re:Two previous post provide sufficient defense... by sbaker · 2003-06-08 05:32 · 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

Re:But where is the code? by Narcissus · 2003-06-08 02:07 · 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).

Things are getting worse for Linux. by aussersterne · 2003-06-08 02:08 · 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

Re:Things are getting worse for Linux. by ^Case^ · 2003-06-08 02:32 · 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?
Re:Things are getting worse for Linux. by jeffy124 · 2003-06-08 02:47 · 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.
Re:Things are getting worse for Linux. by TheFrood · 2003-06-08 03:24 · 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.

What did you say they wanted? by Lumpish+Scholar · 2003-06-08 02:08 · 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

Re:What did you say they wanted? by the+gnat · 2003-06-08 03:51 · 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".

I've seen this kind of thing before... by DaHat · 2003-06-08 02:12 · 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

OSX port by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-08 02:12 · 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

That's exactly why SCO won't talk. by L.+J.+Beauregard · 2003-06-08 02:14 · 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

Re:That's exactly why SCO won't talk. by dmaxwell · 2003-06-08 03:27 · 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.

The real problem goes beyond SCO by NotoriousGIB · 2003-06-08 02:18 · 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.

like music sampling? by goombah99 · 2003-06-08 02:20 · 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.

What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + GPL by NZheretic · 2003-06-08 02:30 · 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'

Re: Consider this by Black+Parrot · 2003-06-08 03:00 · 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

Theft is fheft.. but.. by nurb432 · 2003-06-08 03:07 · 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 ----

Drive by shootings? by h00pla · 2003-06-08 03:09 · 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

wrong by dh003i · 2003-06-08 03:09 · 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

Re:wrong by janda · 2003-06-08 05:52 · 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).

If you read the article carefully... by leonbrooks · 2003-06-08 03:10 · 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

Re: More like does IBM keep track of submitters... by Black+Parrot · 2003-06-08 03:16 · 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

Heritage of that code? by Catiline · 2003-06-08 03:17 · 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:

Linux steals code from SCO. (This is what SCO is claiming -- theft of IP via IBM's developers.)
Linux gives code to SCO. (In my mind a likely possibility, given that SCO-- once Caldera Linux-- sold a Linux distrobution.)
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?

Are things really that bad? by sbaker · 2003-06-08 03:17 · 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

Re:Are things really that bad? by mark-t · 2003-06-08 06:47 · 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'
Re:Are things really that bad? by isorox · 2003-06-08 11:19 · 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)?

Damages vs. Claims by Cylix · 2003-06-08 03:18 · 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

80 lines lets see? by linuxislandsucks · 2003-06-08 03:22 · 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

The world's oldest profession by rifftide · 2003-06-08 03:46 · 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?

From Bicycle to Cadillac . . . by Beatnick · 2003-06-08 03:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

. . . in 80 lines???

Must be some killer lines.

Yeah, there is: by mindstrm · 2003-06-08 03:55 · 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.

Re:What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + G by mce · 2003-06-08 04:02 · 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.

That's it? by GreatDave · 2003-06-08 04:12 · 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."

The issue here is contractual - not ethical by Paul_murphy · 2003-06-08 04:14 · 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.

Re:Has anybody considered - a different slant by pVoid · 2003-06-08 04:14 · 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.

Re:hmmm by canned+polar+bear · 2003-06-08 04:21 · 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?

Plebian? by leonbrooks · 2003-06-08 04:31 · 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

Found it! by SnowZero · 2003-06-08 04:39 · Score: 5, Funny

linux-2.5.69# wc -l ./include/net/bluetooth/sco.h
81 ./include/net/bluetooth/sco.h

Re:This is rediculous by janda · 2003-06-08 04:53 · 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).

Re:Which is why they wont release the code by mark-t · 2003-06-08 04:54 · 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'

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-06-08 05:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Consider this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-08 05:22 · 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.

80 lines of Unix code on the wall... by The+Lynxpro · 2003-06-08 05:47 · 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*

this one is kinda hard to prove on either case.... by scoobywan · 2003-06-08 05:48 · 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.

It's simple... by Angry+Pixie · 2003-06-08 06:10 · 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 ;)

David Boies and SCO by bstadil · 2003-06-08 06:14 · 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.

The question that comes to mind... by Gerad · 2003-06-08 06:44 · 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!

I got the 80-lines by Tablizer · 2003-06-08 06:53 · 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.

How SCO could resolve this, once and for all by jd · 2003-06-08 06:58 · 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)

So What? by Tuckdogg · 2003-06-08 07:24 · 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.

What was not said by diakka · 2003-06-08 07:30 · 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

I'm confused. What's RedHat doing by WhiteWolf666 · 2003-06-08 07:51 · 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

A fact by fact recount.... by borgheron · 2003-06-08 07:51 · 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

The Final Straw to me by LuiWoh · 2003-06-08 08:25 · 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.

The Question... by iMMo · 2003-06-08 08:37 · 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??!?

*Only* 80 lines? by JohnFred · 2003-06-08 08:40 · 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

I think I found it. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-08 09:04 · 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.

Re:I think I found it. by janda · 2003-06-08 09:25 · 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).

Does OSS clash with capitalism? by raw-sewage · 2003-06-08 11:26 · 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.

Aberdeen and M$ in bed. coincidence? by Mark19960 · 2003-06-08 11:30 · 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

Re:Nope by dh003i · 2003-06-08 12:20 · 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

IBM will be punished, but Linux will still prosper by reporter · 2003-06-08 12:24 · 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.

Re:Lawyer's Algorithm: Fix bug by Snork+Asaurus · 2003-06-08 12:33 · 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.

A single point in time proves nothing. by fireman+sam · 2003-06-08 13:23 · 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.

Re:Nope by Minna+Kirai · 2003-06-08 13:56 · 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)

Re: Consider this by RedBear · 2003-06-08 16:30 · 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"?

Re:SCO's secret plan..*shhh* trade secret!!! by mgessner · 2003-06-09 04:14 · Score: 2, Funny

I think you forgot:

6. PROFIT!!!

--
"Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect

Slashdot Mirror

SCO Shows 80 Lines of Evidence?

180 of 940 comments (clear)