Slashdot Mirror
Did SCO 'Borrow' Linux Code?
An Anonymous Reader writes "Apparently someone inside SCO has stated that SCO(actually Caldera) copied Linux code into System V. They did it to build what they now market as Linux Kernel Personality - the ability to run Linux software on their Unix. Now, the open source community(of course they don't mention who) is jumping on this, because they didn't return the changes to the OS community or give the community credit. Of course, SCO says it's a misunderstanding and, get this 'SCO also never used any of the Linux kernel code.'"
No duh. How many people have been saying this? AND how many people are ignoring the fact that SCO group themselves released the "offending" code under Caldera? Everyone but IBM it seems, since they think this lawsuit is frivolous.
Someone heard something that someone said that someone else knew someone in some other division that stole Linux code and put it into the SCO code.
Hints and allegations! Jump on it!
I have been pwned because my
Righto, so they never used any Linux kernel code, but they supposedly a small fragment of it... I suppose that means they never tested any of their code? What kind of contribution to Linux could they possibly make coding like that? :)
--- Bwah?
more correctly at slashdot it's:
Microsoft
SCO
RIAA/MPAA
Mike
that they're either gearing up for a huge launch and trying to get as much media attention early on, or they're getting ready to die as a corporation and leave everyone alone finally.
to us, this would seem like more than enough evidence to put SCO down. But, we all know how our government and society deal justice, like with the previously mentioned chewplastic.com, so im not gonna jump to conclusions, but rather wait till the final results are in.
> "I allege that SCO is full of it" -Linus
Fuck them up thier stupid asses.
I'd like to use Linux (right now I use Windows XP) but there is too much metaphore... in fact politics shroud the community like a flow of white light. I don't like SCO as much as the next guy, but threatening drive by shootings of SCO executives? These guys are trying to make money in American corporation, with poor economic downturn, etc... like I said guys, cut out the metaphore and write great systeme....
Yes ... And why can't it be the other way around?
... It hasn't been tampered with ... Try to convince and explain that to a judge and jury ;)
That the code inside Linux isn't from SCO but the code inside SCO is from Linux?
How to prove that? If SCO wasn't using any kind of CVS - and
Everyone knows that this is just a ploy by those OPEN SOURCE FREAKS trying to get bought out by SCO!
They have no intention of taking it to court!
Time to test GPL in court ?
Software should be free as in speech, but if we also get some free beer, all the better.
Of course. I'm hoping someone who knows something about the Linux kernel code can get a look at this code. Maybe *we* (as in FSF or Linus Torvalds or maybe even IBM) should be suing *them*. This could be the case that tests the GPL. We *need* this and should embrace it. It will put to the death once and for all the FUD that Open Source licenses won't pass legal muster.
My journal has hot
Can the open source community sue? If so - can't we just give them what they wanted to give Linus?
-- Ilya
This is the last gurgle of a dying corperation. SCO produces, for all purposes, nothing. Why didn't they pursue these claims when they manufactured Caladra, a form of Linux? because they know they're groundless. There's no way that the Linux kernel isn't in public domain. To try to prevent distribution based on 80 lines of code of a program with thousands of lines is ridiculous. Not only that, but any 80 lines of code could be easily removed, thus SCO can't reveal it. When this goes to trial and they're forced to reveal the lines of code and the lines are promptly removed, no one will care and SCO will fade into obscurity. Good Riddance.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
the code in question is roughly 80 lines in length and contains matching comments...
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Does this mean that Linus can now sue SCO for a billion dollars?
In other news, SCO have announced they are changing their name to reflect changes in their business model. The new name will be SCUM.
There's no chance that SCO was using a version control system for development.
Look like a lose-lose situation for SCO. I hope that greek tragedy end soon so we can worry about meaningful problems.
Enough with the SCO. It is like a bad childrens song that you have to listen to over and over and over and over and over and over....
The Linux kernel works far too well for any of SCO's code to be a part of it.
If you belive the merits of this claim....If you belive them, now's your chance to cash out from the pot those greedy bastards at SCO have on the table...it's something like $9.50 / share now! ....grab it... .....SELL SHORT.....first thing when the market opens....
Take all of that money before the greedy bastards grab it off the table!!!!....Monetary damages are the only thing the SCO mgmt. and the speculators funding this operation respect. Take their money before they figure out that the knife cuts both ways...
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury... This is Chewbacca..."
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
This is exactly the kind of scenario that Cringely pointed out in his latest column about the SCO vs. IBM situation on his PBS.org website:
I, Cringely: Technician, Steal Thyself
Related past columns:
May 22, 2003
May 29, 2003
read Eric S. Raymond's OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint, I suggest to read it. It is very interesting and shows that we have nothing at all to worry about. Great job, ESR!
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
Isn't this the same problem that came up with the BSD code? I.E. AT&T liberally copied the BSD code and then sued BSD for using their code. At the time, it was a sever problem for BSD and lead to the widespread adoption of Linux.
I doubt the same problems would happen with SCO, because unlike AT&T back then, which was the Unix company, SCO is just some pissant company no one cares about.
That would also explain why SCO has been so unwilling to show exactly which bits of code they used. People would quickly realize that Linux developers wrote the stuff, not SCO.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to claim that Linux used code stolen from their own Linux compatibility layer. What are they going to claim "Without our code, Linux would never be compatible with, um, Linux"
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
But do you have proof that SCO is violating copyright? SCO has proof in the opposite direction and they have made it available under NDA.
uh.. all wasted in the subject..
Two questions, though:
1) Out of curiosity, how does FreeBSD handle Linux binaries? Is it Linux kernel code included under the GPL somehow or did they implement it themselves? If the latter, isn't this accusation against SCO the same as SCO's argument of "Well, they must have misappropriated our code because, well, they must have!"?
2) What am I supposed to get about "get this 'SCO also never used any of the Linux kernel code.'"? What's the issue? The extraneous "also" that wandered in from the next sentence, probably an eWeek typo? Or is it supposed to be a claim that SCO never used Linux code at all, despite the nect sentence making it clear that "used" means "used in the LKP"?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
It's also interesting to note just how easily SCO found their code in Linux; you'd think it'd be too difficult to find such things unless you were looking...or if you already knew they were there...
Give the man his rightful fortune! I'd also like to see some money go to the authors of zsh, php, and mysql. Is there any sort of fund to pay OSS developers for their contributions?
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Given the amazing degree of agreement in the discussion of 'Why Johnny Can't Handwrite", I think we need to put cursive right up there before Microsoft.
Everything will be taken away from you.
One wonders if the new suits that have taken over SCO actually know what's been happening there over the last few years! Wouldn't it be wonderful if SCO did it to themselves? IBM's counter suit should be entertaining. It may be time to short SCOX!
Your use of the the word 'metaphor' is peculiar. Try 'belligerent', instead.
Better yet, try www.tubgirl.com
Anybody want to take bets as to the source of SCO's "stolen" IP?
-- lk t lv ll th vwls t f wrds. T svs lts f tm t wrt bt ts pn n th ss t rd nd mks m lk lk cmplt dpsht.
Is it a crime to use open source codes, keep them and change them to commerical only later? can the open source community take the offender to court for that matter? or they can only complain about it on SlashDot?
And what happens if the codes have been modified significantly? can the open source community still claim the ideas/innovation rather than the coding itself?
i hope this issue has already been addressed and open source codes do remain in the public.
But it depends on who wrote the stolen bit. Could be linus, could be alan cox or one of the many other contributers.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
COUNTER SUIT!
You mean, like, again?
SCO sues IBM because they use Linux code that SCO says has SCO code in it. Novell says Unix isn't SCO's. SCO says Unix is theirs to exploit. Linux geeks angered by SCO says SCO copied Linux code into its products, ... etc etc ...
:
...
When I was, oh what?, five years old, I remember that kind of talk in the courtyard at school during recess
- Hey, Johnny stole my yellow marble
- No I DID NOT !
- YES YOU DID !
- It's not your marble anyway, it was mine, I just told you to borrow it, I didn't give it to you
- I'll tell my Mom Bruce stole Robert's marble, and you'll be GROUNDED !
- I DID NOT !
- YES YOU DID !
Replace one of these kids by SCO, another by Novell, a third by IBM, a fourth by the Linux community, the one who tells Mom by Microsoft, the courtyard by the computer industry and Mom by the DOJ and there you have it.
*sigh*
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
The User Friendly comic strip summed the whole SCO thing up nicely here. Funny? Hidden truth? You decide.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
Here's what I've been wondering: if linux has code that's the same as code in SCO unix, why assume that linux copied it from SCO and not vice-versa? You can't just point to code that's the same and say "Aha! linux copied!".
It's not about seeing the same code in both places, it's about establishing which was developed first. You can't look at just the current version of either linux or SCO - you have to look at the change history of the common code. In one version, the code should show some evolution over time - across RCS versions, or across versions of kernel releases. In the copied version, a whole bunch of code will have appeared "Poof!" all at once. You can't just look at the surface - you have to look beneath the surface, into the code's history.
Of course, there is the possibility - I consider it unlikely - that large chunks of code appeared in both places all at once. This will mean that the code was developed over time external to whichever version of linux or SCO unix had it first, then copied in as part of a major rev... but somebody, some developer somewhere, will have interim versions, notes, design docs. Code doesn't just spring from the head of Zeus - it evolves, and whoever developed it will have to be found to prove its origin.
that even if you have already read it, this text is being constantly updated, so you still might want to check it out for the latest updated, such as those from 2003-05-26.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
Sounds as if the source doesn't understand the difference between the BSD license and the GPL.
At Microsoft, Windows NT (XP) source code is only available to general employees through a web based search engine. It would be very interesting if segments of open source code were found inside Windows itself.
At the policy level, Microsoft is extremely paranoid of Open Source. At the individual developer level, the quality and depth of code reviews varries substantially from group to group. As a result, Microsoft is highly unlikely to be aware, as a company, if Open Source has penetrated its products. This presents a significant risk to shareholders.
Apple, on the other hand, has done an excellent job of integrating Open Source into their commercial product(s). They are certainly aware at the marketing level that there is a combination of Open Source and Apple code in OS X, so I assume they have a very good handle on the situation at an engineering level.
Now SCO is in the worst position. Not only do they have the same tech-industry turnover rate as companies like Apple and Microsoft to deal with, but they've changed hands repeatedly in the last decade, further randomizing the org structure. While the SCO legal team may be able to construct threatening arguments aimed at IBM, Linux and friends, they are really exposing their vulnerability to counter suit. Again, significant shareholder risk exists in SCO.
I have already sent threatening letters to all of SCO's customers telling them to cease and desist. It was a hassle and cost me almost three dollars in stamps, but in the end I think it will pay off.
I have warned them that I am seeking 4.2 trillion dollars in damages, plus they must give ESR a full body massage.
This seems more than reasonable to me.
OK, so perhaps they borrowed some code from Linux, but I'm sure they returned it by now. It might be a little overdue, but I'm pretty sure the source is in the same condition as when they borrowed it!
Neither a borrower nor a lender be...
yeah, that happened to me a couple of times too.
Unixware can read ext2 filesystems, no? Where did that code come from?
"Mike"? Who is this evil "Mike"? He must be stopped!
I think nearly everybody is missing what SCO's real goal is. Of course they would like it IBM gives them a truckload of money, or SCO's own product sales pick up, but they do NOT really expect either to happen.
What they actual want: Defacto or Actual CONTROL OVER LINUX.
Chris Sonntag made it completely clear when he publcly said 'we hope to get our arms around all the Linux out there' and 'there is no legal use of Linux'?
Defacto control can be achieved by establishing (at least in business people's minds) that Linux infringes their IP, but never revealing exactly how. They will simply say: Look MS settled (and yes they really were threatened with a SCO lawsuit), Look IBM settled (they might, I bet they would if SCO offered to settle for a undisclosed ($1) amount), Gartner, Aberdeen, Yankee Consulting say Linux may infringe, etc.
Full control (SCO owns Linux copyright) may be established by asserting Linux is a combination of public domain work (GPL stuff) and copyrighted SCO stuff. In other words, they want the courts to assign them OVERALL COPYRIGHT FOR LINUX. Their Legal complaint makes this 100% clear that this is their position:
Paragraphs 77 to 81 of SCO's complaint describe their view of "General Public License" [sic]. In Paragraph 80, read their claims on GPL copyrights (they say there aren't any). Paragraph 77 (and their general claims overall) seek to thus establish Linux is a combination of public domain and nefariously obtained proprietary SCO IP. If the court accepts this line of reasoning, we are left with the situation, where SCO will be able to claim exclusive copyright on the overall work of Linux.
SCO owns all of their own product, so they can claim standing when you they sue. The copyright to the Linux kernel, AFAIK, is owned by a large number of people. While Linus may have written the core of it, there have been a large number of contributors. In order to sue someone, you must prove that YOU were wronged by that person (there are rare exceptions, like parents suing on behalf of their children). Without knowing with piece of code was copied, there is no way to prove you have standing.
Does anyone out there know any ways around this? I would love to be corrected, because as things stand, this just looks like another case of the big guy using the legal system to screw over the little guy =(
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Microsoft
SCO
RIAA/MPAA
Mike
That's four
Err... hello? If you distribute it (SCO did) it must be given back; I can't find anything in the GPL which mentions a copyright notice as an alternative.
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
>A source close to SCO, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told eWEEK that parts of the Linux kernel code were copied into the Unix System V source tree by former or current SCO employees.
Someone outside, but _potentially_ credible said they copied. Not an employee. This is only a _possibility_. Perhaps the source assumed too much or maybe I'm wrong.
sucks to be him... he just accidently became the 4th axis of evil. I hate it when that happens.
more correctly at slashdot it's:
Microsoft
SCO
RIAA/MPAA
You forgot Adobe and Unisys.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
SCOicide: to kill yourself the SCO way.
SCue: to sue people to your own detrement.
SCOurce code: invisible, yet high value code that does not exist in any physical form. Beyond quantum code.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The way to prove the code?
Compile it.
SCO *has* shown something to the public, to whit: binaries. Compile the original programs that contain suspected infringing code, compare it against the binaries they shipped, and if the match, the are able to place their code in time.
CVS logs can be altered. The code that is compiled cannot, nor can they change the binaries that have already shipped.
It's easy, it's fast, and it is accurate.
That should place the SCO code in time within about a six-month period. If the Linux code pre-dates this period by a significant amount, the infringing code came from the Linux kernel, and SCO is a smoking crater.
If the Linux code came later, then it is IBM who is curb-stomped, followed by a full-frontal assault on Linux itself.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
"Did SCO Violate the GPL?"
No. If they had published Linux code as proprietary software, they have violated the copyright law.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
...that everyone calls them "SCO" and not by their full, expanded name. That way, a fine town and school doesn't get dragged down into hell with them in people's minds.
(Go Slugs!)
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
My worst conspiracy guess would
that it is Sun Microsystems. They
have a whole lot to loose to Linux,
and not much to gain. And the
reason for all the secrecy is to
obviously not make all of their
customers, or potential customers
angry.
It is just free.
/. to arms against SCO and the RIAA, despit what those jerks deserve.
Anyways, there is a big difference between SCO attacking the work of volunteers and those volunteers wanting to strike back. I'm sure those college students out of their life savings would apreciate a good RIAA driveby...
Disclaimer: I am in no way calling
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Sometime late last fall I received a call from a local business. They had a Unix box that was on the fritz, but unfortunately only had MCSE's on their support staff.
After meeting up with my contact at the site, I tried to get a little more information about what kind of problem it was having. As we walked to the elevators he explained that no one really knew exactly what the box did, or if it was even in use anymore, but it was obvious that the machine was rebooting itself for no apparent reason.
We got out of the elevator at the basement level of the building. The server was sitting alone in a damp room with a concrete floor and concrete walls. I was already pretty sure it was going to be a hardware problem, since Unix boxes don't tend to reboot for absolutely no reason. I pointed out that the damp environment was undoubtedly bad for the machine.
He said, "The honest truth is, no one wants anything to do with this box. It's sitting down here because we're out of space in our server room, and the only guy that knew anything about this box quit three years ago, so we don't even know if it's doing anything useful." With that he turned and left me to figure out the problem.
The machine was plugged in, the power switch was on, but the console was blank and mashing on the keyboard didn't seem to have any affect.
As I was unscrewing the side panel from the case I started to notice that there was a really rank stench in the room. When I first entered the room I figured it was just mildew from the dampness or something, but it was really strong now. I really just wanted to get out of that dimly lit room and out into the sunlight and fresh air.
It was hard to see anything in the case, so I fumbled around inside it with my hands making sure all the internal cables were securely attached to their respective components. Suddenly I felt something squishy and slimy on my hand and jerked it out of the box.
At that instant the machine came on and began to POST. As the memory counted up, I turned the box so I could see into it by the light of the screen. Now I could see the cause of the problem. A rat had crawled into the case via an open drive bay and made a nest near one of the power supplies. She and several hairless newborns had died in there a week or two previous, and I had just stuck my hand in the middle of it all.
As I was wiping my hands off on my pants, I noticed the machine had finished booting. I was like "Ugh, gross! This thing is running SCO Unix!"
Needless to say, I marched right up to the IT offices and told them that the machine was undoubtedly no longer relevant to their business and that they should just throw the whole mess in the dumpster.
---
Raising the bar on Slashdot trolling since 2003
There are two salient facts in the article.
first the SCO engineers were not re-writing the SCO linux kernel they were simply writing stubs and wrappers for the SCO kernel to make an API (if you will) that looked like Linux on the outside and was actually calling SCO unix routines. they were NOT changing the SCO unix routines or making SCO kernel more linux like. they just wanted to allow Linux application to be able to execute in a Linux Personality Module layer that made SCO look like linux without having to change the SCO kernel
Second, in the process of doing this they noticed that many of the linux routines were identical to their SCO counterparts even down to the variable names!!. At the time the engineers thought this was dandy since it meant the the layer could just call the analogous SCO routine without any modification. I guess it took a while for it to dawn on someone that this also suggests that Linux may have been copied from SCO's kernel. (or mutually from a third source).
But the point is they were seeing identical code in linux and the activity they were conducting would not have lead to putting linux code into the sco kernel. This is bad for linux.
And since they were not making changes to the linux kernel --they were just making a layer that emulated it on top of the sco kernel-- they did not violate the GPL. there is nothing that needed to release nor any copy rights they needed to cite.
the ONLY thing one might think here that is at all suscpiscios is as a result of this excersize the SCO enegnieers became really familiar with linux routines at a high level of detail. but this is not a crime and does not suggest they copied from it. their observation of the similarity and the purpose of the project suggests the opposit infact. sounds bad for linux.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
When SCO allege stolen code etc etc in Linux, we all say no way, produce proof. The tone of the submission is that SCO have to also prove that they didn't copy linux's code, whereas it really should be the "insider" producing proof before we take it seriously.
Come on you guys? We all know that those 80 lines of code represent the vast majority of the kernel because Bios declared Linux as a bicycle without it!
Anything else is impossible and would bring communism and our whole American way of life otherwise.
http://saveie6.com/
O'DOYLE RULES!
My blog
Can the open source community sue?
All (hmmm?) Caldera customers ought to band together and initiate a class action suit against SCO for providing them with a product which SCO hadn't screened for IP violations. In doing so they are endangering their customer's businesses. If they *did* screen the code, noticed that there was copyright and IP infringements within Caldera, it might also be argued that they have maliciously marketed a "trojan horse" in the knowledge that they can "black mail" said customers for additional "surprise" fees/licenses later on.
If so - can't we just give them what they wanted to give Linus?
What? A barium enema?
It really does'nt matter in this country who is "right" or "wrong". That is all beside the point. The only thing that really matters is how much money you have to play with. By being able to afford an expensive lawyer, you can make "wrong" seem like "right" to any gullible jury. I would'nt be suprized if M$ did'nt suddenly begin donating "gifts" to all of the judge's involved in this dispute for their upcoming re-election campaigns.
Whether or not this anecdote has even a shred of truth to it is irrelevant, it's still a great story. I think it's a crack up.
http://www.readmyfinger.com - check it out.
and SCO did copy Linux code and as a result will be held accountable for that we should all thank RMS for insisting on what he believes in.
:)
Well we should thank him anyway and often
- Back off man. I am a scientist
this is from sco's complaint
81. In addition, the GPL provides that, unlike SCOâ(TM)s UNIX operating system or IBMâ(TM)s AIX operating system or Sunâ(TM)s Solaris operating system, no warranty whatsoever runs with its software. The GPL includes the following language:
NO WARRANTY
BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAWâ¦THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
Except for the free of charge part this could have come from Microsoft or SCO.
Perhaps a lot more. Anyone stealing code from SCO would likely at least change the comments, as they know the source code is going to be public. On the other hand, anyone doing code for SCO knows that the code is not open source, and likely never expects anyone who could match it to Linux code to see it. Might have even been done by a coder who wanted a quick fix without the knowledge of the management of SCO (or Caldera or whatever name the software was done under at the time). Then later someone at SCO finds the matching code. What is their first impulse? To say "Oh, we may be stealing code"? Or to say "Our code matches code in Linux so IBM must have stolen our code".
I still like Cringley's explination best, that SCO did exactly what they openly said they were doing and merged Linux with Unix. But assuming they didn't make this up completely and indeed there is some code in Unix that matchs code in Linux down to the comments, it seems much more likely that some of the widely available open source Linux code was improperly put into Unix than some of the closely protected source code for Unix was put into Linux.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I'd like to see IBM, EFF, Redhat, Suse, and whoever else file a counter class-action lawsuit or something like that. Lets face it- if you can get a handful of large corporations together to defend one of their competitors, THAT's gotta say something.
also, if IBM stole linux code, that should be easy enough to track through public records- if the code was in linux before IBM jumped on the bandwagon, then that proves IBM's innosence.
At this point it amounts to libel or something. They're tarnishing the reputation of IBM and Linux, and everyone who sell linux is going to have their sales hurt as well by this frivilous lawsuit.
Rot in hell SCO.
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
Challenging the GPL in court is on a hiding to nothing.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
Instead of signing petitions asking SCO to sue us... , why not join together and form a class action lawsuit? I'm sure that the number of companies and individuals who support linux and open source could get this rolling. Instead of SCO being bought out, why not bankrupt them?
To any and all SCO licencees stating that they my face potential legal liability from use of stolen SCO code, and that they should consult their lawyers for advice. Let's send the FUD back from whence it came!
My rights don't need management.
yes but it looks hell of a lot worse for linux then it did before this article.
All of this is speculation/rumor anyway
this is slash dot. and check out all 99.999% of the other speculation on this same thread, they all are speculating this clears linux. poor sods.
It has serious implications but everyday some other company or researcher jumps into the fray and every other day SCO looks worse and worse.
If only reality or even day time TV could be this good.
Hands down, barnone the best frivolous lawsuit ever conceived.
Here's what I said in response to a previous /. story.
SCO copied Linux code?
Just a random, alternative explanation.
Or maybe, the same monkies they got to write Shakespear (sic) by random chance, wrote the same exact code in two different places. Let's think... the odd of randomly producing the same 1K of code have an upper-bound of about 1 in 64^1024, still not exactly zero. A Lower bound would be a big factorial expression. Ignoring the comments and differences in names and variables, most becomes VERY similar (hence OOP & patterns).
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
AT&T/SCO - You stole our code
BSD/Linus - Yes, but guess what? you have a load of mine too
AT&T/SCO - mmm, ok, let's settle.
and they said BSD was dead..
int var1=1; /*This is an integral variable, initializaed to 1*/ /*This is an integral variable, initializaed to 2*/ ... /*This is an integral variable, initializaed to 80*/
int var2=2;
int var80=80;
That's it, 80 lines of code.
print version
I'm not defending this, as it's a clear violation of the license, but lazy programmers under pressure with a net connection will know what a gold mine freshmeat is, and many won't be able to resist taking a shortcut.
SCO also never used any of the Linux kernel code
is : Copyright (c) 2003 SCO Minister of Information. All rights reserved.
I don't know if the married core developer's wives are going to be happy about this. Especially if the Trillian's you're issueing are in the classic Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy form factor.
void swap(int &a, int &b)
{
int c = b;
b = a;
a = c;
}
THIS WAS COPIED ALMOST VERBATIM!! This incredible piece of ingenuity was all Linux - SCO wasn't capable of creating such a clever function, so they had to copy it. If you look at SCO's version:
void Swap(int *num1, int *num2)
{
int temp = *num1;
*num1 = *num2;
*num2 = temp;
}
The similarities are STRIKING. Too close to be mere coincidence, don't you think?
I have just finished creating ISO's of SCO's Unix and have shared them on KaZaA. I'm certain they will be the most downloaded item soon, second to only Jenna Jameson movies and whatever the newest Eminem CD is. They will be out of business shortly. Sit back and relax.
do you not understand? The article states:
what?! that happens to me about twice a week. you mean that is a rare occurance? you've been listening to sco lately, haven't you.
if it wasn't for that horse, i wouldn't have spent that year in college.....
I liked
[next]
the article
[next]
but the
[next]
layout
[next]
sucks.
Here is the printer friendly version
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
SCO is gonna have a hard time fighting IBM if this article is true. now instead of Linux copying UNIX UNIX copied Linux. Now they are gonna have to be dodging lawsuits and trying to stay out (or go into) bankruptcy. I do have a few concerns. Why would SCO risk the reprecussions of violating the GPL. Why would they take such a risky venture if they knew that they were on legally shakey ground. Why are they still witholding the lines of alleged copied code. Is it because they can be easily removed?(almost assured) or is it because they themselves contributed it to Linux?(somewhat likely) Lastly, this whole confrentation with Novell is a bit disturbing. If they investigated this correctly before filing suit they should have known that the copyrights were never officially transferred. why didn't they ask for the transfer before the lawsuit started? I don't really have answers just questions. enjoy trying to find answers.
FWIW...
From the article:
A source close to SCO, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told eWEEK that parts of the Linux kernel code were copied into the Unix System V source tree by former or current SCO employees.
That could violate the conditions of the GNU GPL, which states that any amendments to open-source code used in a commercial product must be given back to the community or a copyright notice must be displayed attributable to Linux, he said.
That would be the BSD license. The GPL requires a project that incorporates GPL code to be GPLed as well, which means the source must be made available to people who get binaries and their rights to distribute the program under the GPL cannot be infringed. If this does not happen the right to distribute the GPL code is revoked and its distribution is therefore a copyright violation. Therefore if SCO really stole GPL code for its Linux Kernel Personality it has a serious problem on its hands.
Nobody ever said it was "just" 80 lines of code. Merely that 80 lines of code is what has been revealed so far to "independent financial analysts."
There has never been a definite statement on the amount of code. Only "thousands."
"Sufferin' succotash."
If this is true, S.C.0. should be counter sued by all 1500 company's that received "The Letter".
the quoted source says they "re-implimentd" the Linux functionality using SCO unix routines. THe source does not say they copied the code itself. they just added ts functionality in to SCO. The reporter is just a dumb.
So I'd like to say to SCO, "Maybe we stole your code, or maybe you stole ours. Truth be told, I really didn't check the changelogs before posting. So the question you have to ask yourself is, was there really time to do those kernel mods on time and under budget. Do you feel lucky, punk? Well? Do ya?"
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
first the SCO engineers were not re-writing the SCO linux kernel they were simply writing stubs and wrappers for the SCO kernel to make an API (if you will) that looked like Linux on the outside and was actually calling SCO unix routines. they were NOT changing the SCO unix routines or making SCO kernel more linux like. they just wanted to allow Linux application to be able to execute in a Linux Personality Module layer that made SCO look like linux without having to change the SCO kernel
Yes, this is what the unnamed "source close to SCO" says he was doing -- re-implementing certain Linux kernel APIs in the UnixWare kernel. And you're correct that that's perfectly legal.
But what he's saying is that while he and the other programmers on the project were implementing the LKP, they discovered that portions of the UnixWare kernel were already very similar to portions of the Linux kernel -- to the point of having identical variable names (presumably non-trivial ones), etc. In other words, although the LKP project is perfectly legal, this anonymous source says that while working on it, he and the other programmers on the project uncovered evidence of prior code-copying by SCO.
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
you still rule! Look at this!
Hm.
I don't agree that SCO produces "nothing," because they are clearly selling server computers and such on their website. Yet I would agree that they produce nothing unique, new, or innovative (quite like Microsoft... sorry, couldn't help it). I spent a while looking over their "products and services" and I couldn't find a single thing a sysadmin couldn't get somewhere else. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but sysadmins are SCO's main customers, and even more specifically, Unix sysadmins.
Now I got thinking: most Unix sysadmins are Linux and Open Source advocates. At least this has been my experience. So it seems to me that even if SCO won this lawsuit, they would lose most of their customers. As I said before, SCO doesn't provide anything unique, new or innovative in any form, so there are plenty of viable alternatives to their services us sysadmins can move on to. In conclusion: this lawsuit is a lose-lose situation to SCO no matter what. Either they lose the lawsuit and their company collapses, or they win the lawsuit and angry system administrators simply move on to any of the billion other companies that provide exactly the same things they do.
A short note before I wrap this up: I sent a message like this to SCO early on in their lawsuit against IBM, urging them to cancel it quickly. After clicking the send button, I noticed a little message that said something like "Thank you for your input, you will hear from us soon!" I realized at that moment that I was stupid enough to write in my personal email address in that email, rather than my standard spam distraction. Well, I did get a message from SCO very quickly, in a way, for the next day my inbox was littered with spam... something I had never gotten before I wrote that message.
Thanks SCO. Thanks.
http://mediagoblin.org/
They said that they received around
16 million in licensing fees the last
quarter, mostly from two sources. One
of them was acknowledged to be
Microsoft, and the other did not wish
to have their identity disclosed.
Microsoft was estimated to have given
them ~$8.8 million dollars. That leaves
another unnamed player on the stage.
It implies that either SCO stole from linux, linux from SCO, or they mutually copied from a third party - could as easily be any of the three.
"During that project [Linux Kernel Personality for SCO] we often came across sections of code that looked very similar, in fact we wondered why even variable names were identical. It looked very much like both codes had the same origin, but that was good as the implementation of 95 percent of all Linux system calls on the Unix kernel turned out to be literally 'one-liners'," the source said.
I don't quite understand this. If the guy was working on the LKP project and they discovered similarity between SCO UNIX and Linux during that work, then SCO did not copy that code as part of the LKP project (although they may have copied it before). Or did he join the LKP project late and alleges that other people on the same project copied the code before he joined? Or is he saying that SCO had copied Linux source code for other reasons and they were just discovering that fact during the LKP project at SCO?
Adobe I can understand, but Unisys is just misunderstood.
slashdot!=valid HTML
It's not a matter of understanding what was written. It's a matter of BELIEVING what was written. What you quoted is what the REPORTER wrote. The parent pointed out that what the REPORTER wrote doesn't make sense given what his SOURCE told him and was quoted on.
Vote for Pedro
...that esr is an idiot.
Dammit, I should have known posting this would jinx the whole thing.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
You're looking in the wrong place. Take a look at the Linux kernel *comments*:
/* Derived from Applicom driver ac.c for SCO Unix */ /* Next comes code from mmuinit procedure of SCO BM driver which is called from HWconfigure in the SCO driver. */
arch/i386/kernel/mic rocode.c: 16 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian
arch/i386/kerne l/smpboot.c: * Original development of Linux SMP code supported by Caldera
drivers/char/applicom.c:
drivers/char/drm/drm_context.h: 2001-11-16 Torsten Duwe
drivers/char/rio/bo ard.h: * Ported from existing RIO Driver for SCO sources
drivers/net/hp100.c:
drivers/net/slip.c: from Jim Freeman's >jfree@caldera.comerik@caldera.commm@caldera.de
* Neither Greg Page nor Caldera, Inc. admit liability nor provide
* warranty for any of this software. This material is provided
* "AS-IS" and at no charge.
---
Leon Brooks
'SCO also never used any of the Linux kernel code.'
'I did not have sexual relations with that woman.'
'There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!'
One has to wonder if Mohammad Saeed al-Sahaf is on their board...
All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
And I did a worse job a few replies later. Mod this parent up. (And make my other reply in this thread redundant, if you want.)
Nothing to see here, I just wanted to say that.
That could violate the conditions of the GNU GPL, which states that any amendments to open-source code used in a commercial product must be given back to the community or a copyright notice must be displayed attributable to Linux, [the anonymous source] said.
Seems to me that he doesn't quite have a clear concept of the GPL. Let's hope he has a clearer concept of what actually happened.
"Microsoft is highly unlikely to be aware, as a company, if Open Source has penetrated its products. This presents a significant risk to shareholders."
What would the legal ramifications be if a single 'rogue' coder inserted GPLed code into a commerical product? Would such sabatoge open MS stockholders finacially responsible for the damage done to a freely distributed OS?
That would be a tough case to win. More likely, MS would be asked to remove the offending code, and they would do so.
Having a policy not to use GPL code and the money to buy good lawyers, there is NO incentive for MS to patrol for GPL code. I would argue the opposite, that M$ would benefit by borrowing GPL code for a quick implementation while bugs are worked out on their own versions. Not saying that they do it, just that individuals working for MS and MS don't have much to lose, as long as the official policy is NOT to use open source code.
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
...and...
So... when they distributed their UNIX with the LKPM included (their "work") and that contained GPLed code, they accepted the terms of the GPL. But they have not distributed, or offered to distributed, the source to their (now GPLed, since the accepted the terms) "work".
This means that either they violated the GPL after agreeing to it. The owners of the copied code will band together and sue them for $2G, I hope, and settle for costs plus distribution of the full source of UnixWare 7 distributed as per the licence agreement SCO acceded to. Just to labour the point, they have already distributed derivative code, so halting distribution does not undo their requirement to distribute full source.
Do I need to make it simpler for you?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I wonder bout him.
We already know that comments are common between Linux and SCO (assuming that SCO is telling the truth -- HA! ).
Why doesn't someone write a utility that scoops up all the comments in the kernel tree into one file, and have the comments sorted.
That "comment grabber" utility would be run against:
* Linux 2.0 (the Linux version that existed before companies started playing attention to Linux -- there's little chance of commercial contribution here)
* Linux 2.2 (the Linux version before IBM became involved)
* Linux 2.4 (the Linux version after IBM became involved)
* FreeBSD (the place where a lot of Linux source code is legally borrowed)
Once this is done, the Linux versions would be compared with FreeBSD using a good visual diff tool like the one that comes with Bitkeeper. That will tell you how much code Linux shares with FreeBSD. It's almost certain the SCO contains a lot of FreeBSD source code (after all, even Microsoft legally took a lot of FreeBSD code and Windows is nothing like Unix).
So in a round about way, it will also tell us how close Linux and SCO can potentially be without violating any licensing agreements.
That utility will also serve another purpose. IBM and several other companies have access to the SCO source code. If they ran that utility and compared it with both Linux and FreeBSD, they'd be able to highlight which parts of SCO that are shared with FreeBSD and Linux. They can do that *without* violating the licensing agreement.
Heck, I'd be willing to sign an NDA from IBM if they'd allow me to do that comparison. I don't plan on contributing to the Linux kernel so I have nothing to lose as long as their NDA is fair.
UNIX source isn't some close-held secret; everyone's implementation is, of course, but there are tons of licensees; it is certainly possible that "generic" UNIX source could be passed on to Linux for various reasons (stupidity, ignorance, arrogance, maliciousness against either party). If it's SCO's own customisation of what they license to other parties, then it's one of their people (or IBM, of course).
That's all assuming that we believe this anonymous story, which could well have been perpetrated by a slashdot reader, of course....
And then, SCO could be making it all up, as has been said enough times before to be not worth repeating.
Specifically, may not be claimed by any party as a trade secret or copyright property. GPLed code is a "copyright property", the entire licence depends on that. Asserting that the code cannot be bound by copyright is essentially the same as asserting that it's public domain. Have a look at the example GPL'ed program header:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Sounds like you need to GB2GBS, am i RITE?
OMG OMG LUNIX OMG
As someone else suggested here, you'd probably have to find the author(s) of the code allegedly heisted.
I've wondered about issues of standing in such cases before. This is the sort of thing that would ensure that any such case would move up and down the appeals ladder for years. You'd need to get those people to agree to be parties in the suit. Presumably they would receive any damages. They'd also need someone to fund the suit, unless they actually work for someone (like IBM) with the inclination and resources to sue.
Severly Cripple Unix Market?
Seppuku Can't Undo Mistakes?
Still Can't Understand, Mcbride?
Sco Crushed Under Microsoft?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Here's the thing: you can use Linux without buying into any of the politics.
I use Linux (in addition to other OS's). I do not buy into much of the OSS rhetoric. I definitely do not buy into any of the Stallman rhetoric. But I still use Linux and GNU software. Why? Because you can use this stuff without necessarily feeling that OSS is *the* be-all, end-all.
I think it's great that people are willing to spend time and energy on free, open-source software. When my programming skills are a little sharper, I think I will contribute to a project or two that I find useful. But in the end, I plan on being a professional programmer as soon as I graduate college.
Don't buy into the hype - just ignore it and try the software. Linux is great for many people. And even some open-source software that is usually associated with Linux is available for Windows (my trifecta: Mozilla, OpenOffice, GIMP).
Don't just look at the end binary. Look at the symbol tables. Even on different compilers, the symbol tables will tend to be very similar. Especially if optimizaiton is not set to absolute max.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Really there are wmds in iraq
... the U(nconcievable) S(uckers) I believe it is ... to attack.
There's this black stuff under the ground in huge quantities that causes some stupid country
Probability is on the side of what you said, but who would want to sue SCO for GLP infringement? FSF? Do they have money to do that? If they had, can software idealists sue the hard-core corporate scum backs? Maybe they should but so far thereâ(TM)s no indication of that. Why? Because it is probably not in their nature. One might even make an observation that itâ(TM)d have to be a compelling case to start such thing. Who would provide evidence? But anything is possible, so Iâ(TM)m getting ready to short SCOX stock when it hits $10.25-10.50 mark.
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
The WMD's in Iraq were brought there by the U.S. military.
I came.
OMG OMG LUNIX OMG
How does that saying go...? "Dream on, broomstick cowboy!" (-:
I'd be quite surprised if after Ransom's "unification" drive there wasn't some GPLed code in UnixWare.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Actually, believe it or not, SCO is on OUR side. They've duped everyone except certain Microsoft competitors who are paying them to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. See, SCO KNOWS that they've violated the GPL by copying code from Linux, and they KNOW they're going to get run through the ringer. And that's the POINT! See, once it's out in the open that SCO has been lying, the FSF, IBM, and others will sue SCO into oblivion over GPL violations, finally testing the GPL in court and proving its validity.
The primary purpose of the GNU organization is to create free software based on valuable commercial software. The primary operating system advanced by GNU is Linux....
I came across another page with quotes from select quotes from RMS and Bruce Perens:
Richard Stallman
I consider the law prohibiting the sharing of copies with your friend the moral equivalent of Jim Crow. It does not deserve respect.
Richard Stallman, Free as in Freedom, Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software: O'Reilly (2002) at p. 72
The whole GNU project is really one big hack. It's one big act of subversive playful cleverness...
Richard Stallman, Revolution OS (DVD)
Bruce Perens
This is becoming a tradition. I go there and break the law every year in the name of free speech.
Bruce Perens, explaining his plan to demonstrate how to modify DVD technology to attendees of an Open Source convention.
We have to remember that Linux is a follow-on to UNIX. It's not just a UNIX clone. It's actually a UNIX successor.
Bruce Perens, mpulse magazine, December 2001.
As if the lawsuit were not damaging enough -- we have heard of businesses halting further Linux deployments due to these allegations and the lawsuit, we have high levels of FUD around people outside the open source software community in general, and Linux's, and perhaps even OSS's image is being tarnished, at least for now -- we have mischaracterizations of the nature of Linux in numerous ways, all out insults the hard work and ingenuity of the many developers who've contributed to give us a true alternative to proprietary computing by claiming they were incapable of performing such a task without corporate assistance (as if 80 to a few hundred lines of code out of about a million really gave Linux the boost from being "fringe" software to being a competitive alternative to the big boys, as stated in the first link of this post), and they are outright using character assassination on some OSS proponents with no shame whatsoever on their website.
Now, I'm not one to be shocked when businesses show disregard for truth and ethics, but this is quite a campaign they've got going here. I, for one, would hate to see IBM buy out SCO, as it would reward acting in this sort of fashion, not only for SCO, but for companies in similar situations in the future -- I'd much rather see them either get their pants countersued off by IBM and possibly other organizations as well, or have the judge throw out their case and give them a good censuring.
-DAVEO
So they claim, but install the sources from an old Cladera linux distro. Grep for Caldera and see the code they contributed. Infact they even say it's GPLed in there comments. Is it cut and pasted from Unix? I don't know I don't have the source to Unix (I don't know anyone who does? do you?). Is it the same lines that they're claiming people stole from them? I don't know that either, IANAA
Fast forward to the present and you have SCO suing IBM about getting chocolate in their peanut butter. SCO would have a much better chance of winning if they sued themselves.
I hope this SCO stuff goes away before it scars the image of Open Source. The more that CIO's and the like read about these lawsuits, the more likely they are to be skitish about using OSS for risk of being sued. Who knows if that'll happen, but some of this is giving ammo to the crowd who calls the GPL and the like viruses.
Mike's no threat threat to anyone:
http://www.brandijasmine.com/fan/rcaf/
He's stuuuuuuuupiiiiiiiiidddd.
College CS professors have programs that will check these things specifically for cheating (Even identical commenting isn't impossible, but identical spacing patterns are very very very very unlikely.)
SO SCO give me the source you already say it's offending, so you can't take it off my CD. (I ALREADY HAVE YOUR SOURCE SCO MUHAHAHAHA.) We rewrite it, recompile, and viola any *offending* source is gone.
Don't like that case? Then, I'll copy my Caldera Linux CDS (copied for asethetic purposes only I assure you) which I downloaded 2 weeks ago from your site: ftp.sco.com. I'll recompile (that is if your kernel will even make config.) Sue me, and sue yourself.
Not so much impressed by SCO as by the box itself.
A client rang to complain that their SCO-Unix-based ap was logging users out occasionally. I clocked on via SSH to their Linux gateway and then telnet into SCO (ugh). Couldn't see anything obvious, and I needed to go past them shortly so I dropped in personally.
Where's the SCO box? SCO box? You know, the computer that the software for this clinic runs on? It runs on all of the computers. Is there a computer not running Windows? (thinks...) Oh, that one.
The SCO box turns out to be under the front counter mounted vertically in an MDF (particle board, basically) box which is a close fit on the sides and leaves about 1cm at the top. There is no ventilation at the rear. The box is too hot to touch!
I get a knife and wiggle the box out so that a few millimeters are protruding, then (the knife is hot now) switch to two notepads top and bottom. The box (still running, still in use as I do this - peak hour at the clinic - still too hot to touch) slowly wiggles out far enough that I can drop its nose onto a stool.
I put a pad atop the box to avoid burning my arm and take a couple of bolts (screws, really) out of the back so I can get a side off. The side pops open and I can feel my hair crinkling up, it's that hot inside.
There is no PSU fan, but the CPU fan (PPro 233?) is still pushing hot air around inside the box. I fetch a fan-heater and while doing so am told that users are no longer being kicked off at all. I direct the fan into the box and leave until close of trade.
I have also had three or four Linux boxes continue operating without a blip well after (on the order of months) their CPU fans have died (as in, frozen solid with muck); they are called in only when the box is rebooted (power failure) and the BIOS overheats the CPU during startup. Once when I had no replacement I just powered the box down to cool, pulled the fan off and directed a fan-heater (on fan-only) at the fanless CPU until I was sure it had survived boot.
I have never had an MS-Windows box survive for that long. They crap out while the CPU fan is still spinning quite fast.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Because like you said, they are "wacky". This issue has been
discussed to death in the muslim world: I have listened to the
"da'wa" tapes, and the muslim scholars came to the conclussion
that requiring women to show their face for Passport photos was
"Shar'i" or legal.
This whole face-cover thing is not even required by the Quran itself
or the Sunat of the prophet. Muslim women are required to show modesty,
and not solicit sexual attention from men. The veil predates Islam and
it was kept in Islam because it was the fashion at the time (also
practical for the desert, altough some trace the vail to Greece and
the Helenists.) The prophet is reported to have opposed anklets when
he migrated to Medina, which the Medinite (then called Yathrib) women
wore. Please note that there is difference between "Hijab" which is the
head cover and the veil which is the everything-cover.
But then, Islam is a faith and as every faith it is a very personal thing
and up to the interpretation of the practitioner. We all have our ways
to supplicate to our dieties, she chose to cover herself up, just like
some of you chose to work 16 hours a day studying and tweaking "software"
and you feel as if this thing will someday save you and/or the world and you
percieve it to be of great value.
I personally would applaud sister Sultana if she takes a civil stance on the
matter, and poses for her ID photo unveiled, instead of just giving up on the
whole issue or filing for an appeal with a different court or taking her matter
to the Muslim populace and begging for pitty, etc.
This is stupid. Haven't you guys ever hear of Occam's Razor. Generally the simplest solution is the correct one.
FreeBSD can run Linux binaries. If SCO needed a Linux Compatibility Layer or whatever, why would they illegally copy code from the Linux kernel when they could just lift whatever they wanted from the FreeBSD sources?
Oh wait, what was I thinking? This is Slashdot - Conspiracy Theories for Nerds. Bill Gates probably broke into Linus' home himself and stole the source code for SCO.
people of linux... i have read many posts today in which linux bretheren attack linux bretheren. i too feel many different emotions to this situation with SCO. the main thing that we have to remember that linux will survive, despite greed. linux will surve, despite SCO. linux will survive, despite microsoft. linux and open source survives and thrives because we believe in it. we spend our time nuturing it. we spend the air that we breath advocating it. linux is ours. nobody can ever take that away.
don't allow SCO to tear the fabric of our existence.
just my ramblings...
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
Pop the Counter-Suits. IBM and Linus should make an example of SCO and put DREAD in the hearts of anyone who dares cross that line.
funny and insightful
I don't have a link handy but I am sure someone does. Code from another operating system HAS been copied line for line into Linux before. I remember some time back that someone from the BSD community was a bit upset that some of their code was copied line for line with no credit. I seem to recall it being a SCSI driver or something like that.
I am sure it was more of a misunderstanding where someone just copied it with no hesitation because BSD is OSS too.
A current violation:
http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxqanda.html
not that it really bears on the case, but as for public image, and those saying "SCO is mad because of the downfall of their unix business"... remmeber.
THe SCO that you see now is Caldera... not the old SCO.
The OLD company that was SCO got OUT of the unix business, and went on to do other application level things, and are doing quite well. So it's not SCO with some grudge about it's unix business... it's some new people trying to leverage some IP they thought they hade.
This is a common mistake people make when looknig at the situation.
If they distribute code derived form a GPL work, they aer not BOUND by the gpl; they are BOUND by copyright law, and the copyright holders who's rights are being violated can sue. The GPL is simply something they could cite to demonstrate they had permission to do what they do.
IT's not a GPL violation, it's code theft. There is a difference.
Yes, there is a clause in the GPL that says "By distributing siad work, you accept this license"... but that can only apply if you have READ the license in the first place. So it's dodgy.
Does that mean that Linus will finally get rich off of Linux?
Have you compiled your kernel today??
And exactly why is this news of worth?
The IP laws fundamentally work against Open Source.
Any company can extract code from an Open Source project, such as Microsoft and then incorporate it into its product.
As such, IP law protects the company from this sort of illegal appropriation because of disclosure rules governing IP law and the DMCA act.
What we need, is something akin to the BSA and SPA. A "tattel-tale" website.
SPA encourages employees to tell on thier companys if they are pirating binaries.
Why don't we have such a website that allows employees to tell on companies that pirate GNU Source Code by incorporating it into thier products, and not contributing the changes back to the community?
After all, do to the enourmous amount of corporate corruption in the US, under the table political manuevers our #1 enemy is doing, there must be a huge number of burned out pissed off Microsoft/ACME employees out there.
We only need one.
Rewards would be part of the legal settlement, should money be awarded.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
There is no need to prove the legality of GPL. If it was invalid, or if someone doesn't want to agree with its terms (because no one has to accept GPL, as it is stated in the GPL itself -- you don't have to sign it, after all) then the only rules there are, are those imposed by the copyright law, which makes it illegal to distribute copyrighted works. If anyone wants to distribute GPL'ed software while saying that she doesn't agree with the GPL, or while questioning its legality, then all she has is a copyright law, which clearly states that what she's doing is illegal. I have posted a comment about it, but it has only Score:2, so obviously no one has read it. Basically, if SCO thinks GPL doesn't mean anything from the legal point of view, then, after rejecting the GPL, when they look at the Linux kernel, what they have is just a piece of software with "Copyright (C) 1991-2003 Linus & Co. All right reserved."
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
It'll be hours before Slashdot posts a another story about the SCO litigation, but I can't wait to ask a question, so a post to this story will have to do.
Presumably if IBM really submitted a bunch of code that they had ripped off from SCO, then there would either be a huge single posting of the code to LKML, or a tight bunch of smaller postings.
So, has anyone identified postings to the list on behalf of IBM that look suspicious?
Would an idiot be able to screw Richard Stallman to get $36 million dollars out of the Free Software Movement, just after calling the old movement his very own, new "Open Source" Movement, leaving Stallman with nothing, a big $0 dollars? (Go figure.) I'd rather call him a GENIUS. And now he's rewriting the history, changing the jargon, and redefining the official hackers' ethical and political rules. I wonder what's he's up to this time. I wonder when we'll read in the Jargon File that every hacker on earth is a gun fanatic. He's my hero.
Something I sent to Slashdot Editors a few days ago...
Didn't get any bites though.
I think it would be a good idea, to bring a class action lawsuit against SCO.
I think we should use slashdot as a place to organize such a lawsuit.
For the following reasons:
1) I think technically, this lawsuit given the recent changes in management at SCO, involves fraud. That is, the companies officers know privately they do not have a case against Linux, and are fraudulently misleading thier investors/shareholders too personally enrich themselves with regards to stock price using a lawsuit to falsify product value to said shareholders/stock holders.
This is due to the recent in jump in SCO's stock price. The company simply isn't worth the current stock price, historically and is therefore artificially inflated.
2) Technically, I think, from the perspective of most Linux Kernel developers, including myself and SCO's own development group, that SCO may have abridged GNU code illegally. If this wasn't the case, I don't believe SCO would have continued to sell thier own distro after they committed the lawsuit.
The suit should include full disclosure of all SCO source code. Furthermore, seperate suits should be filed against SCO should GNU software be found in thier kernel.
3) The suit is affecting the industry, consulting firms, companies in real, economically negatively, in a measurable way. Customers are being lost, companies are having to spend money to switch, or consult legal people. This is all because of SCO's suit.
We do not need to wait to the end of this suit, we can file class action suit immediately to get damages/satisfaction.
I also believe that if we ajoin the company officers in #1, we should be able to file a seperate lawsuit against each officer of the company, and not just the company as a whole.
I think, we should use slashdot as a place to:
1) Ask people to generate documentation. Documentation of an official nature, which supports points 1-3. For example if you are a consultant, and you lost a job based on SCO's injunction and public statements, ask the customer to write a letter detailing the loss of business because SCO makes Linux too risky.
2) Internally, if you are working for a company, obtain permission to use corporate Email disclosures for any migration plans away from Linux.
3) Detail any personal damages as a result of not being able to make medical insurance payments, bankruptcies, or personal financial hardship as a result of the loss of business as a direct result of SCO's pending lawsuit and its affect on your salary/business.
I would be happy to help organize my time with regards to this, and would encourage anyone to Email from Slashdot as to how to proceed.
Please post.
Afterward, we can begin the process of selection of legal counsel once we organize.
-Gregory Carter
-CEO
-Applied Engineering Software Group
-gcarter@aesgi.com
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
If the file containing the code you stole has prominent text in it referring you to the GPL (as recommended by the FSF), then you are deemed to have been responsible for reading the GPL before using the code.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Guy 2: Hey you got Linux in your SCO
This from the inheritor of AT&T code which lost a lawsuit against BSD; from the company which (as Caldera) worked for more than a year on "unifying" Linux and its own (more or less) Unix; from the company which earlier this year released the "Ancient Unix" sources.
Time for the padded walls and do-up-at-the-back jackets. Or a fraud suit. Or possibly both. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I'm sure as a comedian he would've loved you stealing his joke from "Relentless."
"Sufferin' succotash."
The quoted "source" does not seem to know much, or talk like a sane kernel hacker would.
... };
"We were even surprised by the identical variable names of both codes !!" Honestly, who talks like that?
And socketcall() is listed as an example of a syscall that is "fairly hard to wrap." socketcall() is a cheap socket API syscall... Most UNIXes have socket(), listen(), send(), sendto(), etc., all as different syscalls, but not Linux. Linux has:
int socketcall( int call, unsigned long *args );
"call" is an integer representing which socket syscall. "args" is effectively a stack pointer..
Now... This call is INSANELY easy to wrap. Create a table of function pointers:
void *funcs[] = { sys_socket, sys_connect,
Then, essentially, copy "args" to the stack, and call funcs[call], after verifying that "call" is legal and good... This could be done with a touch of assembler that manipulates the stack pointer. Or, you could do it the long way in straight C, the way the Linux kernel itself does.
This would all be very little work. I don't even know much about kernels and I could do it. For that to be described as "hard" is a bit much.
I can think of a lot of other places in the Linux syscall interface that are much harder to wrap than "socketcall()"... Also, it shouldn't surprise anyone that most syscalls map one-to-one across 2 different types of UNIX systems. It's that way for a reason.
This article is... Somewhat confusing... And by all means, sounds bogus.
Well, this comment's the same. It's "My Vow," as seen here. (By the way, I got 50% Troll, 50% Interesting. Let's see if I can do better this time. ;-)
I vow to post these instructions every time an article on SCO comes up.
My Favorite, from the other night. Put the following in the file get_sco.sh and then "chmod u+x get_sco.sh":
This will download their entire FTP site (toPut it in a loop if you really want to hurt them:
Report back when the site's down.This works on the bash shell, which is the default under Cygwin on Windows -- so Windows users can help also.
--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Apparently someone on the inside knows a lot
and really hates the way SCO is trampling on
the community.
Isn't it nice how they can look out our hard work
and no one is allowed to look over their shoulders?
Kudos to this brave soul who took a stand but I suggest
watching your back.
Especially to any one who worked as an engineer at SCO.
My suspicions were raised by the quote:
The source, who has seen both the Unix System V source code and the Linux source code and who assisted with a SCO project to bring the two kernels closer together, said that SCO "basically re-implemented the Linux kernel with functions available in the Unix kernel to build what is now known as the Linux Kernel Personality (LKP) in SCO Unix."
Unless they were a real newbie no engineer who worked at SCO would refer to SCO Unix because this would be internally confusing. SCO had two flavours of unix - SCO Openserver and Unixware.
LKP was really an enhancement on the basis of the lxrun application developed originally by Mike Davidson - I think Sun now doesn't some work with this - also I think it is open source. By implementing a system call trap handler you can implement a system call handling interface for our linux binaries. The LKP was really about making this system call handling and environment emulation more realistic and efficient. You don't 'necessarily' need to put parts of the linux kernel in your kernel to do this.
It is also quite suprising how much lxrun could actually do without all the LKP stuff.
I get the impression that the 'SCO source' didnt really understand how this emulation worked.
This statement is dodgy: Parts of linux were copied in to "The Unix System V tree".
Presumably this refers to OpenServer, it certainly doesn't refer to Unixware. This is inconsistent because UnixWare is OS on the LKP was implemented - and it certainly would not be refered to as Unix System V.
The facts seem a bit muddled to me. It might be that the engineer was telling truth but some facts got lost in translation - and just don't ring true to me. I left SCO before the LKP project was in full flight and I guess they would want to engineer some system calls into the kernel.
There was a lot of crap (usually ignorant or laughably incorrect) on slashdot about SCO before all of this stuff happened. But I do know that SCO had plenty of customers who were very happy with the products and that it was a great place to work.
And by the way, I and no one I've talked to since have seen any Unixware source in the Linux kernel.
Its a massive shame to me that a decent company was taken over by the bandits and shysters called Caldera. It beats me why they had change the company name back to 'SCO' before launching this pointless action.
Since both Linux and Unixware are supposed to be POSIX compliant it is not so strange that the system calls are similar. That is actually the whole purpose of POSIX compliance. The thing is how the system calls are implemented.
Most likely both the guys writing for SCO and the guys writing for Linux would use the variable names used in the POSIX spec which are most likely enherited from the BSD/SysV implementation.
Would an idiot be able to screw Richard Stallman to get $36 million dollars out of the Free Software Movement, just after calling the old movement his very own, new "Open Source" Movement, leaving Stallman with nothing, a big $0 dollars? (Go figure.) I'd rather call him a GENIUS. And now he's rewriting the history, changing the jargon, and redefining the official hackers' ethical and political rules. I wonder what's he's up to this time. I wonder when we'll read in the Jargon File that every hacker on earth is a gun fanatic. He's my hero.
We think this is doable, but need SCO code to do this. If anyone has that carppy OS, please contact us:
recompilesco@yahoo.co.uk
we will find a way to download the OS anonymously.
if we see it is getting anywhere)
(ok, not very legal, but we will make it legit
MOD PARENT UP!
SCrOtum : something that could be painful if grabbed suddenly
Look, everyone! Of *course* you'd use the same compiler, same optimisations, etc. SCO would have a well-documented compiler chain and methodology. If IBM has licensed the code, chances are they have received the build tools as well.
Plus, the burden of proof is on SCO. Make them compile the code in a well-monitored environment. This seems to be the only way to "prove" the code was in UnixWare before it was in Linux.
That is, unless there is some historical repository of SCO code that is both legitimate and trustworthy...
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
That post was so funny, lol
Thats what we call elsayed-lingo here in sweden
To mod you down somehow each and every time I can.
We're not children, and most of us know that crashing SCO's site intentionally does nothing but demonstrate that we too can be cocks.
Under EU law, it is legal to reverse engineer software and hardware for research purpose.
we are trying to setup a project group, anyone intressted?
"I didn't do it, and besides nobody saw me and you can't prove a thing."
Must. Remember. To. Sell. My. Worthless. SCO. Shares.
I will even lose money selling them because of the fees, but I don't want to support anything they.
I always thought Caldera was quite decent, but SCO changed all this.
It's more like that: - Hey, Johnny stole something from me - Huh? What? - Something. - So what did he steal? - I won't tell anybody. - Hmmm, so what shall we do about that now? - Punish him! Punish him! - But you won't tell me what he stole. - I won't tell, but it's worth a billion of dollars. - Huh.
Has this whole thing started hurting SCO's sales yet or not? Any idea how to figure out the sales figures over the last couple of months? Anyway, their days are numbered whatever happens.
To try to prevent distribution based on 80 lines of code of a program with thousands of lines is ridiculous.
Hey, these 80 lines of code comprise the tremendous SCO innovation that made Linux enterprise-ready! They worth a billion dollars!
Personally, I think that SCO should license the code snippet in question. Then, developers could just cut and paste it into their products to assure their scalability and instant enterprise-readiness.
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
Actually, what I meant was, that my comment had only Score:2 and for that reason no one had read it, not the other way around. When there are few hundreds of comments with Score:2, most of readers will set higher threshold. What can I say... I am very sorry that you misunderstood me, and I am even sorrier that your comment was so rude and childish. Next time please try to calm down and post nicer comments. Offensive rhetoric and vulgar words don't make your comments sound more intelligent. I am sorry that you didn't find my comment interesting or worth reading, but you could say it in some nicer way, offending me was at least unnecessary.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
You can clearly see on http://www.sco.com/scosource/unixtree/unixhistory0 1.html
an arrow drawn from Linux 2.2.16 kernel to the SCO UnixWare. Unfortunately you don't see any arrow going the other direction :).
Check out http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html for a non obfuscated version of the graph.
You can defy gravity... for a short time
I'm sorry but I don't really think such texts like this answer to my comment are appropriate, to say the very least. This forum could be read by minors. I, as an adult, feel insulted and disgusted. I'm sure everyone here will agree with me, that we should not tolerate such behavior.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
Actually S.C.U.M. stands for Society for Cutting Up Men. It was active in the 70's, and a member shot Andy Warhol, who survived.
... I've used neither CVS nor Bitkeeper, but doesn't either of these systems keep track of all those who contribute code? I mean, it would seem a little silly if you didn't keep a log of all activity. (Even if it's just for historical purposes). If that's true they could just go back and find the guilty party. Atleast that would mean only one person would be to blame and take the heat instead of a throwing everyone into question. Or maybe it would prove who had the code first?
I'm just so getting tired of this topic.
How can I get one copy of that "visual diff tool" ?... or can you suggest others ?
I will do that comparision myself...
And surprise I have *other* sources...
mods, please have a look at the parent post. It has been both modded up +5 and modded down -5. It is clearly interesting to this discussion, though obviously controversial.
... it is not our fault buddy.
The claims are that the Linux developpers have no way to had come with a polished OS without external help of somebody like IBM.
The fact that SCO offerings lack loads of features that the alleged infringing product has should make anyone suspicious.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You can't copyright facts.
header files contain facts and not function or art (except for any comments I suppose).
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
...in different ways. "If you use the code, you are assumed to have read the GPL pointed to in it" vs "you can't use the code unless you've been granted rights to by the GPL".
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
who's evil Mike?
from what I've read, there are good legal reasons for allowing women to present photo id in Muslim countries, e.g. when appearing in court, but the situations are not analogous. In the U.S. idcards are used for many routine transactions, and any cop on the beat will ask for your id without a second thought.
imo the court's interpretation of the evidence was prejudicial.
it's as if finding that Linux, Apache and Mozilla were open source, therefore there shouldn't be a problem with making any and all software open source.
This decision can't but be a setback for civil liberties.
Has anyone looked at the SCOsource page. They include a section of edited qoutes from "Linux Leaders". I say that because they use Stallman who's not really involved with Linux but GNU. The qoutes are all slanted to make Linux developers look like criminals. Now wouldn't this bit a nice sense of cosmic justice if the reverse is actually found to be true.
To strive, to seek, but not to yield
I would hope someone who claims to be a member of Mensa[1] would also have read the FAQ and realised that administrators (Roblimo, Taco, et al) do not remove posts form this forum ( see this FAQ article).
/. and are 'part of the furniture'. /. would be better served to print the IP address of all posters than to moderate by removing offending posts, but even that would mean we lose the occational invaluable anonymous post (made by users who fear prosecution, retibution or harresment for posting sensitive information).
The comments are entirely unwarrented, but not uncommon, social misfits abound on
-- Comments on Mensa --
[1] (This is entirely off topic, and not intended as a Troll.) I believe Mensa is an entirely undesirable institution created in the 1940's by English upper middle members of society FOR upper middle class members of society, to provide a comfort layer of separation between the great British middle classes and the oiks that make up the vast majority of the population. Though an on-going thread through-out the history of many cultures, is was something that was a particular worry for the British middle classes in years following the end of World War II (where well intentioned thoughts were turning to new world order, and on ways to achieve it, as evident not least from literature and media produced at the time).
I believe that distinction and separation of individuals by characteristics that are predominantly outside of there control (and so for all intents and purposes may be considered 'genetic', though that literally might not be the case) is utterly undesirable and is damaging to society as a whole. In the longer term, is equally as damaging as the separation of individuals based on any other physical characteristic (such as skin colour), but unlike distinction of individuals based of visible genetic differences it's far more subtle.
It's also evident to me that existing measurements of intelligence (including the systems used by Mensa) are dubious to say the least - measurement of an individuals ability to solve problems is useful (as are measurements of there numbers and literacy, which are often part of such tests), but they not a useful factor in determining the actual intelligence of an individual, as this relies to a myriad of other intangible factors (factors that are technically quantifiable - to a degree - when taken individually, but the difficulty lies in determining which factors to test and the importance of each in relation to the other parts, which requires a complex matrix model which we are far from being able to simulate).
As an excellent example, you don't yet understand how moderation on forum works, nor did you have enough nous to read the FAQ when signing up (where it is explained quite clearly in entirely unambiguous terms). I only point this out as it's an excellent example of how the measurement of IQ is flawed beyond usefulness for it's stated purpose. I don't say this to attack you personally (for we all make mistakes and goading or gloating over others mistakes is seldom of benefit), but just to prove a point: if someone is unable to read a manual (as it were), then any measurement which shows they are superior in Intelligence to others (who _have_ read the FAQ and/or who were able to 'grok' the moderation system intuitively) should surely be called into question.
When I think of a group like Mensa, it conjures up images of utopian, socialist (and far from democratic) state led by 'the best and brightest of society' - this was of course the backdrop of a vision of future against which the group was founded. The phrases "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and "The best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley" spring immediately to my mind.
I feel a deep sense of mistrust in anyone who exhibits a desire to join any faction which separates themselves from the rest of the population though a means of elitism that stems from a belief that they are in any way superior to other members of the human race.
It represents an indulgence in a darker aspect of human behaviour that should be guarded against.
I highly suggest creating a new user before attempting that- you'll gind that after a minute or so that you can do serious damage to an account.(deleteing desktop icons, etc.)
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
GNU products have been used in unix environments for a decade or more (I was using gcc and emacs on sun in '95)
We've been sitting around at work discussing this; and, fully expect to find SCO's "offending code" in an early BSD4.4Lite, v 1.x.x kernel, or something...
There are SCO approved witnesses saying the code is the same .... SCO DID volunteer the information .... now there is an unidentified counter claim of copyright violation .... and even if this last claim weren't there, we have evidence the code is the same from SCO and two claims of ownership ....
Just some thoughts ....
Hey, you got chocolate in my peanut butter.....
I don't have a link handy but I am sure someone does. Code from another operating system HAS been copied line for line into Linux before.
Well, yes, but the way you couch that is more than a little disingenuous. Code was taken from one free software project (FreeBSD) and placed into another free software project. The new-style FreeBSD license which the code was licensed under was GPL compatible, so the appropriation of the code itself was perfectly legal. Where the Linux developer in question fell down was by not including the copyright notice wiht the verbatim code, which was a violation of the new-style FreeBSD license. No one can be certain, but it appears to have been an honest mistake. Code was cut and pasted from FreeBSD to Linux, but the copyright notice wasn't (and it should have been). This is more indicative of carelessness and oversight than it is of ill intent (in contrast to, say, copying entire files and then removing the copyright notices, which did not happen), and while inexcusable and intolerable, was immediately fixed (c.f. Linux kernel 2.4.11).
Not to defend carelessness or thoughtlessness, but this is a far, far cry from taking code from a proprietary project and illegally placing it within the Linux kernel, which has never happened, and which almost certainly did not happen in the $CO case either.
I am sure it was more of a misunderstanding where someone just copied it with no hesitation because BSD is OSS too.
Exactly right. People were in general more careless with free software and open source licenses back then. Remember all those months when KDE was technically "illegal" because of incomaptabilities between the qt and GPL licenses? There were numerous flame fests as a result, and gnome owes its existence primarilly to that issue. Had it not been for the kind folks at Troll Tech, who ultimately fixed the incompatability, and now KDE is firmly in the free software and legal camp in every respect. No malice existed, no premeditation to violate the GPL or troll techs license, merely an overly relaxed take on various incompatible free and open source licenses.
One which, fortunately for all involved, the community has grown out of, and one for which we owe RMS's pedantic insistence on adherence to the GPL and license comatability thanks in no small part.
Again, though, this bears absolutely no resemblence to what SCO is accusing Linux of, nor does it bear any resemblence to SCO's apparent violation of copyright in using GPLed linux code within their own proprietary product, and then turning around and accusing their victim of their own crime.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I hardly think so, old bean. Mensa has people like Gary Bushell in it, and he's a frightful oik.
I'm not a programmer, but doesn't FreeBSD have linux binary compatibility? I don't believe Free BSD developers used Linux kernel code. Wouldn't that prove that no linux kernel code must be 'appropriated' to have linux binary compatibility? Can anyone clarify that for me?
Come on people, get a life! SCO(Caldera) isn't doing anything different from what FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris X86, BSDI, and Linux do in their Intel Compatability mode. I remember calling it iBCS, for intel Binary Compatability Services, a few years ago, but the concept hasn't changed. If you want to run Linux software on SCO, you copy over a few libraries and that's it. Same for running SCO software on Linux, except that you had to license OpenServer. In fact, IIRC so many people were running Oracle on Linux in SCO compatability mode (this was in '97 or '98) that Oracle decided to go ahead and support Linux. So we have SCO to thank for some of the first commercial enterprise software becoming available for Linux in the first place.
Everybody calm down and take a deep breath. SCO has made some mistakes recently, and they will eventually see the error of their ways and back off. Screaming about petty stuff just makes Slashdot readers look reactionary and ill informed.
I don't know how to get the Bitkeeper "visual diff tool" but I've seen screen shots from the kernel archives.
However, there are other visual diff tools. The most crossplatform visual diff is TKdiff:
http://www.accurev.com/free/tkdiff/
Here's a screenshot:
http://www.accurev.com/free/tkdiff/tkdiff.gif
If you're on Windows, WinMerge is also very good:
http://winmerge.sourceforge.net/
I personally prefer WinMerge since it has added capabilities (like recursive diffs), but TKdiff isn't bad -- especially if all the comments are in one big file.
Good luck. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with. I'm sure the rest of the Linux community is too.
This must be true. Next someone will find a Microsoft connection.
I certainly wouldn't contend there are plenty of oiks in Mensa now (but god, Gary Bushell) just that was the (well intentioned) backdrop against it was founded against.
To be honest I think Gary Bushell is a not a complete moron though, and the sames goes for Richard Littlejohn - the are just moral vaccums in it for the raitings and shillings.
They must be.
I refuse to think otherwise, the alternative is just _too_ horrible and melts my brain.
Given that I've read here and elsewhere that *BSD has Linux binary compatibility then clearly by your argument they must have stolen it from linux and now must be GPLed.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
nice little monster... hey, you're not MY nice little monster! kill him!
bring on the silly villagers with torches. hey that's us!
Of course, this is all a plot between SCO and MS, who have been swiping Open Source code for ages. Of course Server 2003 works better than W2K! MS swiped FreeBSD & Linux code instead of redesigning a bad system from the ground up. As if anyone could ever get the clout needed to audit their code!
So, by using their proprietary rights as a shield, SCO and MS set up a careful program of sabotage and theft aimed at the Open Source community, hoping to cut the legs out from under the movement, which would leave them the only players standing. (Except for the BSD's, because MS needs free code to steel from.)
And just when SCO thinks its won & is part of the winning team, MS, like Shelob, devours SCO and its other rivals, and crawls back into its cave.
And BTW: I'm SICK of seeing SCO banner ads on /.!
It's been shown that monkeys and typewriters are not a good combination for creating anything.
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
One of these days I'll break down and give FreeBSD a run (I'm still plowing through Slackware 9.0)
A friend who used to work at IBM dropped by to show me an article from Monday's New York Times about the SCO/IBM mess.
During our talk about it, he mentioned that ATT had, back when they were in the picture, actually taken BSD code, stripped off the Berkeley copyrights, and put it into System V. This came to light during the lawsuit that ATT filed against the FreeBSD project, causing ATT to lose the suit.
So, perhaps it is possible that the code that SCO is screaming about isn't even System V's to begin with?
URL: http://xanga.com/lvirden > Quote: Saving the world before bedtime. Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, n
Wrong. On some platforms a code pointer can be a different size than a data pointer. On 16-bit MS-DOS for example it would be common to make API calls using far pointers (two 16-bit components) yet reference application variables using near pointers (single 16-bit component). In such a memory model it would be impossible to store a 32-bit code address into a 16-bit data pointer. Which is exactly why the C language makes no guarantees about the compatibility between different pointer types.
If you're bothering to use C, you should do it right. If a pointer is pointing to a function, then it should be declared as a pointer to a function. You could also, in principle, just use ints as pointers and "cast that to whatever you need," but that would be stupid, wouldn't it?
Vaporlawsuit!
I didn't know you read Slashdot, man!
Now you just need to stop this suicide attempt of yours and we may let you play with the other kids again!
Part Time Philosopher, Oft Times Romantic, Full Time Unix Geek
In my opinion it is not possible to say that the GNU General Public License is unenforceable.
First of all, the GPL is not an EULA.
Second of all, it doesn't forbit doing anything at all with the software, which isn't already forbidden by the copyright law. Everything the GPL does is giving the user more rights, while giving up some privileges of the author, i.e. those very privileges to not give the additional rights to the user, which are not given to the user by the copyright law itself.
The only possible way it could be illegal or invalid would be the case, if the rights which the author gives up, would be impossible to give up even if anyone wills to do it (e.g. some fundamental human right), while it is cetrainly not the case with the GPL.
In the context of SCO, the only way the GPL could go to court would be something like this: SCO says: "Yes, your honor, we used the GPL lincensed code in out proprietary software, but GPL is invalid, illegal, unenforceable, viral, evil, stupid, we didn't sign it, it's not legally binding, etc."
The fact is, that even if the GPL is perfectly OK, they didn't have to accept it, it's really up to them, so it doesn't matter if they say it's illegal, or that they simply rejected it. It doesn't matter at all.
What does matter is the fact, that after questioning or rejecting the GPL, the rest of the case is a classical ages-old example of violating the copyright law.
It is the very same situation, no matter if they used Linux while rejecting the GPL, they used a code without any explicit license with only a copyright notice "Copyright (C) XXX All rights reserved" or they illegally distributed some proprietary software, like, say, parts of Microsoft Windows or Sun Solaris.
When they don't like the terms of the GNU General Public License, then from their point of view, and from the court point of view, Linux is legally indistinguishable from Windows.
So, it doesn't even make much sense to wonder if the GPL is enforceable. The copyright law is enforceable and this is what really matters.
This, by the way, shows the genius of Richard Stallman, who hacked the copyright law with the GNU General Public License. I am talking about it now, but he already knew it all twenty years ago, while discussing the GPL (called GNU Emacs License during 1985-1989) with Mark Fischer, Jerry Cohen and other great copyright law experts.
As Stallman said in 1986 BYTE interview: "You could also see it as using the legal system that software hoarders have set up against them. I'm using it to protect the public from them."
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
about SCO's claims about SCO code being in the Linux kernel then, since you were so deeply involved in the whole thing?
AT&T/USL/Novell/SCO licensed their SysV source to other Unix vendors for years. Somewhere somebody has a copy of their older stuff. I wouldn't be suprised if IBM or Sun have old archived copies sitting around somewhere. Bascially, supoena the source to each version and have it examined (under court seal, of course) to determine when those code snippets where included. Then look at the old copies of Linux. The earlier implementation wins.
Those are probably the most stupid questions I have ever seen. (I know, there are no stupid questions, there are only stupid people.)
As a member of Mensa and someone who can think logically, I can assure you, that no matter what I would answer to any of these questions, there would be absolutely no way to prove those anwers and therefore those questions themselves are completely meaningless, as would also be any answer to them.
I can understand that you might have little interaction with women (and this is really nothing to be embarrassed about), so a conversation with a woman, even on a public web forum, can be unbelievable to you. But what would have you answered if I had asked you if you are really a boy? (Of course you understand that saying just "yes" doesn't mean anything, as our stated gender is something, which is already implied by our nick names.)
If this is the way you think men should talk to women, then I can only wish one thing to your future girlfriend. I wish her that you will first grow up and become more intelligent, before you ever meet her. Otherwise, it can be a very insulting experience to her. Trust me, I know what I am talking about.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
Would it violate the Amazon one click patent, to have a one click lawsuit against SCO? We could scan in the court docs from all 50 states for a small claims suit against SCO (PDF maybe?) We all download and file the same day...Slashdot SCO for our share of the LPK GPL'ed IP ... in small claims court!
We have the SCO lawyers addresses.
2G == 2 gigadollars == $2,000,000,000.00 (or, if you want to be a pedant, $2,147,483,648.00; if I were suing, that's what I'd ask for on principle :-)
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...but you got the general idea.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
LMAO!! UC Berkeley itself has a lax policy on cheating... that might be why. You get -5% if you cheat. I think there should be an automatic expulsion. I one saw someone blantantly using a big-ass crib sheet in an upper div CS course that was closed-book, closed-notes and graded on a scale. You can bet your ass I told the TA, because that's just unacceptable. I also know that cheating is rampant, which is also as repungnant. Most of the cheating involves courses that have hours and hours of problem sets. Since I did not cheat, it took me hours and hours to complete and I did not always finish on time because there was just too much to do. In addition, I know there were people that cheated that got As, while I had to make do w/ Bs and Cs, even though I know more than them and learned the material.
As this applies to the SCO / *nix thing, the truth of the matter is that people cheat and cut corners everyday. Not to be an -ist or -ism, but the people these companies hire are not of necessarily the highest caliber or experience, or even legal citizens, most all companies are guilty of this... finding the cheapest and easiest, the people they hire are often desperate (in fear of death, sometimes) to get into the US or someplace similar. Desperate people do desperate things, so you inevitably get what you pay for.
Btw, I read in the paper that unemployed immigrants can get unemployment insurance. Great, now that the immigrants are here, there's no jobs to be had for more established people. Time to move to Russia.
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
Hows this for a hypothetical:
... and the rest is history. Caldera decide to buy unixware (and openserver?) from SCO... change their own name to The SCO Group, get desperate/greedy, forget their own origins, et voila!
:)
Just suppose that this is how the code got there...
1) when Ray Noorda left Novell, who owned unixware, he took a copy of the unixware code with him.
2) He started the canopy group to make money thwarting Microsoft.
3) The Canopy group and Noorda start/fund Caldera.
4) Through The Canpoy Group, the unixware code (which was later sold to SCO) made its way to Caldera.
5) The Caldera people, wanting to improve and make money selling their one product, Linux, improve it a bit by adding a bit o' Unixware code.
Visit this link... intorduces you to some of the characters.
This is my imagination... but it sounds plausible!
- DRM
Be smart and work to create. Don't ride on the backs of others.
1. ibm buys SCO
2. finds linux code in it
3. publishes SCO's source to show where linux source is
4. demands SCO take it back.
5. sues them into oblivion for hte waste of ibm resources and whatever else they want to
Does anyone else find it odd, that shortly after launching the lawsuit against IBM, SCO partners with Microsoft? And then drops their version of Linux? Also, a Microsoft e-mail is leaked stating something to the affect that "no matter what we can not loose to linux in the Europe market!" Hmm, seems to me Microsoft is using SCO to help destroy Linux and continue Microsofts monopoly!!! Just a thought.
but we aren't talking about a license you need to sign in order to do anything, the GPL is not a use license.
.. but the GPL is not a contract; it's a license. It simply states the terms under which you can do something that copyright law forbids.
Look at it this way: This whole issue starts with copyright, so the FIRSTR question of a "violator" is: This code is protected by copyright, so what gives you the right to use it the way you did?
"nothing, we stole it" - copyright violation. See?
"The GPL does" - Admission they have accepted the terms of the GPL. In this case, you can hold them to it.
I'm not at all saying "if you sign a contract but don't read it, it doens' thold"
You find these insults funny and "OK," still, you think that "babe" is "the most downgrading name you can think of"? Please take no offense, but your logic seems to be quite inconsistent, to say the very least. If you really have to know that, then let me explain the reason I use that nickname. I do hope this explanation will finally end that farse. I personally don't find it downgrading at all. After I won a beauty contest at my university (I didn't even know that there was such a contest, I'm usually not interested in such things, and that anyone could vote for anyone, even for someone who didn't explicitly state her will to participate), some people, who didn't know me personally, but knew that I belong to the Mensa and won the contest, started to call me Mensa Babe, because, in their opinion I am a "hot babe." Actually, I personally don't think so, but after most of my friends who liked that nick started to call me Mensa Babe, I got used to it, and it was natural to use such a nick on line. I probably would have never used that nick, if I had known that it would cause so much insulting comments from people like you.
Please treat them however you please, even as "trolls" whatever that means in today teenagers' "cool" lingo. If that means, that you will finally stop insulting me, then I'm all for it.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
The word babe iconifys women, making them nothing more than meaningless objects.
however
"And I want to ram my giant nigger cock hard into your tight female asshole and violate YOU, whore!"
Is obviously a piss take, and so not that bad.
' I probably would have never used that nick, if I had ?KNOWN? that it would cause so much insulting comments from people like you. ' Mensa?
'beauty contest' you are a troll.
please try harder.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Thank you. You were very kind to repeat those insults. You know how to talk to women. I'm very impressed.
As I am sure you already know, "known" is a past participle form of irregular verb "know," which is used here in a contitional form of past perfect tense, the only way one could speculate about the past in english, because of which I foolishly assumed, that people shouldn't have any problems with understanding it, but now I know how naive I was. You might want to be so kind to educate yourself before trying to insult me next time. Thank you.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)