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.'"
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
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.
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
I would really like to see documentation on this "offending code" to prove that it was theirs.
... no answers.
Otherwise, how do we really know who added it and when? What if it was pre Sys V code? What if the code came from Linux in the first place?
I have heard that the comments were the same, but who made the comments? Is there a name? Does he/she work for SCO?
Lot's of questions
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!
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.
They may have released it as Caldera Linux, but this instance is in SCO Unix which hasn't had it's code released.
Look like a lose-lose situation for SCO. I hope that greek tragedy end soon so we can worry about meaningful problems.
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.
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...
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!
It would be interesting to find out, since they are claiming LINUX is holding offending code, since LINUX in this case can only refer to the kernel itself, and since Caldera released the linux kernel (on their FTP) not that long ago, how can they claim any other company is at fault for using, or distributing the same thing?
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
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.
The moderator who modded you "insightful" was on crack, because you completely failed to read the article. Timothy is suggesting that SCO may have copied (presumably GPLed) code from Linux into their proprietary Unix[tm]. If true, the repurcussions could be, erm, quite interesting.
As lore would have it, the original USL suit against BSD and Berkely University broke up on the rocks for a similar reason.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
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.
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...
Well of course, this explains everything!
Now we know why SCO's so sure those copyright terrorists at IBM are using SCO's proprietary code in Linux! Because SCO put it there :-)
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
In other news, MS accused of stealing x86 assembler code to make Windows programs run over... x86 processors
How else? an Intel source was quoted saying
This is not my opinion. Actually, it's not even an opinion. And I'm nowhere to be seen near it
>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.
Considering the /. crowd, I'm surprised this wasen't modded up +5 Insightful ;)
--LordKaT
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)
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
O'DOYLE RULES!
My blog
No, the original poster didn't fail to read the article; you failed to read his comment.
The original poster has a point, but it has little to do with the article. Please read the article again. This is a new claim. If substantiated, it basically constitutes a large torpedo headed in the direction of SCO.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
do you not understand? The article states:
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.
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.
The article goes on to say,
which implies that the code with the same variable names is actually original Linux. It appears to me that the reporter, especially one from eWeek, knows what he's talking about, and this further explains the statement in the second paragraph.The SCO code in question was in the process of being written and could not yet have been copied into the Linux kernel unless someone on the Linux team had a time machine. I repeat, the article is about a SCO engineer encountering supposedly NEW SCO code that appeared to have been cribbed from already existing Linux code.
Please re-read the following quote from the article and evaluate how it fits with your interpretation of the article:
This is not about old SCO code finding its way into Linux, this is about supposedly new SCO code written to implement Linux kernel functions that looked suspiciously like code taken straight out of existing versions of Linux.
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.
It doesn't establish the origin. It just establishes that they have the same origin. UnixWare has been around longer than Linux, so I think it is safe to say that these functions were in UnixWare first. But I do believe that their path into Linux was almost certainly via the common parent of BSD licensed code. Especially given their age.
Now it's possible some coders in the mid nineties decided to beef up SCO's unix by copying code over from Linux, but why? It would break backwards compatibility. And similarly, why would these functions change much from the beginning of Linux? They probably did not. So unless SCO's code got into Linux from the near beginning, I think it is much more likely that BSD is the common descendant.
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/
IIRC, it was settled, not won. And the settlement included removing parts of the BSD.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I visited SCO's download portion of their website. I'm looking at the license for same random windows software, not there Unix code, but it's still fun.
Here's the license:
LIMITED WARRANTY
Caldera Systems warrants that upon Your receipt of the Product and for a period of 90 calendar days thereafter, the media, if any, on which the Software is embedded will be free of defects in material and workmanship under normal use. Caldera Systems does not warrant that (i) the Software and any related Updates will be free of defects, (ii) the Software will satisfy all of Your requirements or (iii) the use of the Software will be uninterrupted or error-free.
In case of breach of warranty related to the quality of the media, You must return at Your expense and no later than 10 days after the expiration of the warranty period, the Product to Caldera Systems or its local authorized representative, together with a copy of Your dated Proof of Purchase. Caldera Systems or its representative will replace any defective media, or if not practicable, may terminate this Agreement and refund to You the amount paid for the Product. You acknowledge that this Paragraph sets forth Your exclusive remedy and Caldera Systems' exclusive liability for any breach of warranty or other duty related to the quality of the Product.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
Except for the caldera systems warranty set out above, or otherwise expressly provided in a separate agreement with caldera systems or your supplier, all warranties, terms, conditions, representations, indemnities and guarantees with respect to the software, whether express or implied, arising by law, custom, prior oral or written statements by caldera systems, its licensors or representatives or otherwise (including, but not limited to any warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or any implied warranty of non-infringement of third party intellectual property rights) are hereby overridden, excluded and disclaimed. Some states or countries do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties, so the above exclusion may not apply to you. This warranty gives you specific legal rights and you may also have other rights which vary from state to state or country to country.
Under no circumstances will caldera systems or its licensors or representatives be liable for any consequential, indirect, special, punitive, or incidental damages, whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, based on your claims or those of your customers (including but not limited to, claims for loss of data, goodwill, profits, use of money or use of the products, interruption in use or availability of data, stoppage of other work or impairment of other assets), arising out of breach or failure of express or implied warranty, breach of contract, misrepresentation, negligence, strict liability in tort or otherwise, except only in the case of personal injury where and to the extent that applicable law requires such liability. In no event will the aggregate liability which caldera systems or its licensors may incur in any action or proceeding exceed the total amount actually paid by you for the specific product that directly caused the damage.
Some jurisdictions do not allow the limitation of exclusion of liability for indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages so the above limitation may not apply to you.
-Dave
"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?
not true! they never stole ANY X86 CODE!
/dev/urandom >winsock.dll
they're even willing to show you how they created it!
# cat
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
I'd like to see a timeline.
I found a November 2002 article talking about SCO, high end computing work that they had done with Compaq in the clustering arena and a brief touch on LKP.
I found a February 2001 article just about Linux and SCO integration and LKP.
I found a 2002 SCO Newsletter touting LKP.
I also found Simon Baldwin's resume who has a long history at SCO and who was the "Lead Kernel Engineer and Architect for the Linux Kernel Personality (LKP)" from February of 2000 to "present".
So the LKP stuff was going on quite some time ago. Before or after IBM allegedly put the offending into Linux? Inquiring minds want to know.
'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.
That's what happens with future versions, yes. However past versions that have this code are now, whether they like it or not, GPLed, too. This means that anyone that currently has a version of UnixWare with Linux support can demand the source code for it.
"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
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
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.
Nope. All this means is that SCO is guilty of a license violation.
IANAL - but I'm betting that you would have to take them to court and convince a judge that the violation was intentional ("Hey, let's use this GPL code!"), willful ("Yah. We can just ignore the license."), and pervasive ("Sure, why not - the VP of development and legal already said that's fine.") Otherwise, SCO can just claim that the inclusion of the GPL'd code was a "misunderstanding" between a long-gone developer and a long-gone manager, neither of whom had the authority to make this kind of decision on behalf of the company.
Even if you got past that hurdle, I expect that you'd have to explicitly request that the code for the past versions be placed under the GPL as part of the settlement, and SCO would probably value the code so highly ("One billion dollars, your honor!") that any order to GPL the code would give SCO a good chance to get that aspect of the ruling either thrown out or reduced on appeal.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
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.
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.
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.
Another possibility, at least for some of the code in question, is that someone at Caldera authored code that was contributed to Linux under GPL and was placed into Unixware to be released under Unixware's more restrictive licensing.
Dual licensing is legal as long as the copyright holder agrees to it. If the code in question originiated with Caldera/SCO (and thus Caldera/SCO own the copyright) and was provided to Linux as GPL code and inserted into Unixware as non-free code, there's no lawsuit in either direction. So, if we find that the code came into Linux from Caldera and/or SCO, it means we're in the clear, and so are they.
Another possibility is that a third party (eg. IBM) authored the code and effectively dual-licensed it--licensed it to SCO for proprietary use, and licensed it to Linux under GPL. Again, that's most likely fine.
The only way SCO might have a lawsuit is if the code originated in UNIX/Unixware, and was contributed into Linux by someone other than the copyright holder.
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
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?
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
cat /dev/urandom >winsock.dll
Hey! but that's the way I created my whole MP3 collection!
The GPL doesn't count because violating it essentially voids it leaving you with copyright law for distributing terms. (You can't, but if you do, you have to pay thousands per copy.)
If SCO had not been trying to screw over the Linux community, this would probably be, small cash settlement, an apology and stop using the code, as it is the copyright holders are probably not going to want to be nice.
Work bio at MMWD
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.
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.
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.
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
Only true of the newer BSD license: the original contains the "advertising clause", which is incompatible with the GPL. Alan Cox had a problem with this: he wanted to integrate a BSD IP stack (back before Linux had one), but at the time the BSD license wasn't GPL compatible. So, he wrote his own GPLed one and integrated that instead.
As lore would have it, the original USL suit against BSD and Berkely University broke up on the rocks for a similar reason.
As lore would have it, the proper spelling of Berkeley is B-E-R-K-E-L-E-Y, and the proper usage is "University of California, Berkeley," being that Berkeley is the University of California; the other UC schools (UCLA, UCSC, et al) are merely extensions of UC Berkeley, which was founded in 1868.
So no, it's not spelled "Berkly," Berkely," Berkley," or any combination of the three, and it most certainly has no connection to the Berklee College of Music.
I'm amazed that any self-respecting geek can misspell "Berkeley", given the advances made there. Where the hell do you think Berkelium and Californium were discovered? If it weren't for Berkeley, which runs LANL and LBNL, the DOD would be up shit creek, and GWB wouldn't have any of those "nuke-u-ler" weapons he likes to talk so much about. For the love of god, the guy who won a Nobel prize for inventing the frickin LASER is a professor there.
Without Berkeley, there'd be no BSD; it's the Berkeley Software Distribution. It's in the name of the operating system. If you can't even properly spell the name of the operating system to which you're referring, why even bother to make any comment at all?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
... 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.
"...[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."
and
"The LKP is a feature that allows users to run standard Linux applications along with standard Unix applications on a single system using the UnixWare kernel."
and you said
"so I think it is safe to say that these functions were in UnixWare first"
So you are saying UnixWare was compatable with Linux binaries before Linux came to being? Just asking.
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
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.
Certainly I have better things to waste my bandwidth on.
PORN!
Freedom is still the most radical idea of all.
You are right, thank you. I'm trying to add every one of them to my "freak" list, but it's not easy, when I'm still being insulted by some new ones... Thank you for good word, though.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)