Slashdot Mirror
No Business Like SCO Business
The SCO must go on. Informationweek has a roundup. News.com has some analysis of the legal case. SCO reiterates their threat to revoke IBM's license. Reader hobsonchoice sends a blurb: "Also more from analysts who saw SCO/Linux code comparisons under NDA. Bill Claybrook, of Aberdeen Group Inc., says SCO changed their story to him about whether they had any "direct evidence" that IBM copied any System V code into Linux.
Laura Didio of Yankee Group has answered some detailed questions about her code review process. Lastly Fujitsu Siemens have joined in the debate: they don't think SCO's case is going anywhere." One observer of the SCO case has compiled some notes about Caldera's active participation in the IA-64 project. And look on the bright side: if you follow the school of thought that all publicity is good publicity, at least this suit has gotten Linux mentioned in many places where it normally wouldn't be.
Ok. We all know what SCO is doing, or at least trying to do.
I hate to sound like a troll, but do we really need this ammount of press time about it? How aobut one giant wrap-up post once this whole business is overwith and SCO is nothing but a faded memeory?
Could we try that? Please?
I think this summs it up better
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
seams to me that SCO has ask IBM about the dirty knife!
Then IBM says to SCO:
YOU BASTARDS! YOU VICIOUS, HEARTLESS BASTARDS! lOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE TO HIM (Linus)
HE'S WORKED HIS FINGERS TO THE BONE, TO MAKE THIS GNU/LINUX WHAT IT IS
AND YOU COME IN WITH YOUR PETTY, FEEBLE QUIBBLING AND YOU GRIND HIM INTO THE DIRT!
this fine, honorable man, whose boots you are not worthy to kiss!
Oh, it makes me mad, MAD
how the end always is
and SCO is finnished! On Monday we will see the full brunt of IBM's power come down on SCO.
that SCO is thinking they'll file an injunction with a judge on Monday. So, what it seems like to me is they are talking like North Korea.
"You...you...play nice IBM or we'll revoke your AIX license on Friday... err...hm, it's Friday now...um, err...play nice or we'll revoke it on Monday, punks!"
Duno. I know like, nothing about law so maybe this is standard practice.
Mmmm......sacrelicious.
Maybe IBM did do some work in Linux, but it would seem that Intel and HP had more to do with making it scale better.
[WEDNESDAY] We are going to revoke IBM's UNIX license if they don't pay up by friday!
[THURSDAY] We have it all planned out. We have this very well calculated. On friday, if IBM does not do what we say, we will revoke their UNIX license and they will be hurting badly.
[FRIDAY] Um.. yeah. We are SO going to revoke IBM's UNIX license if they don't do what we say. Uh, i mean, it's still friday. If they don't do what we say by midnight. Yeah.
[SATURDAY] Well, our deadline has come and gone. We are now free to revoke IBM's UNIX license. Um, at a time of our choosing. Yup. And we will be doing this to IBM. Um.. next week. Unless they do what we say by then. It wil be horrible for them.
I notice a lot of these articles in Businessweek, Etc. seem to very negative. Is anyone noticing a different trend toward linux at their place of business due to this FUD? SCO=Trash
I did NOT learn everything I need to know in kindergarten.
I can see those headlines in tomorrow's IBM company newsletter.
Well, SCO is still not out of cash... aparantly. So, for them to stop, they need to run out first. Since they have to pay for bandwidth... I guess using a little wouldn't hurt.
/comv/null them if you don't want to use disk space, but still want to download them...
z ip
So, got bandwidth? Mad at SCO? Want to learn more about their products and/or hear them talk? Last time they pulled the file when slashdot wanted to know how to administrate their Linux server. This time...
Download a 36.6mb ZIP from the SCO Authorized Eduaction Partner program from here
(for all you non-English speakers)
a 12.9mb Italian OpenLinux manual pdf from here
a 10mb Unixware administration pdf from here
a 7.9mb mp3 of a Calcomra confrence call (May 2002) from here
a 4.2mb mp3 of a SCO confrence call from here
a 4.5mb vector image of the Calcomra logo from here
OR
a 6.8mb SCO education Linux courseware pdf from here
***If you want to get these interesting files easier, you can also launch an unspecified number of wget processes. You can even -O
36.6mb: (removing the space in 'zip')
wget sco.com/images/pdf/education/SCO_AEP_posterfiles.
12.9mb:
wget sco.com/images/pdf/ecomsktop/ecomsktop_24_it.pdf
10mb:
wget sco.com/images/pdf/aep/UW7NET~1.PDF
7.9mb:
wget sco.com/images/pdf/06032002.mp3
4.2mb:
wget sco.com/images/pdf/q2.mp3
5.4mb:
wget http://www.sco.com/images/pdf/12-11-01.mp3
9mb:
wget sco.com/images/pdf/aep/OS5NET~1.PDF
4mb:
wget sco.com/images/pdf/unixware/946000000b.pdf
And, if you need their entire website for offline viewing... not wanting to waste bandwidth downloading things multiple times:
wget -r -l0 http://www.sco.com/
Every time a license is revoked a penguing get its wings. Wait a second.....
Your paranoia is about as subtle as the alien probe in your neck.
There's no business like SCO business
Like no business I know
Everything about it is appealing (the verdict!)
Everything that justice will allow!
Nowhere could you get that happy feeling... when you are stealing... that sacred cow!
There's no people like SCO people
They smile when dealing their blows
Even with a comp'ny that you know will fold, you may be stranded out in the cold
Still you wouldn't change it for a sack of gold, let's go on with the SCO!
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
Does SCO have Robert Stein as a legal consultant?
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
I have no idea if there really is a BSD common root to that code, but it's at least one possible explanation. Hard for anyone to tell when they won't tell people what they think is stolen.
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com
I do not think I have seen this posted on Slashdot yet, but then I might have just missed it:
Pirate of Penguinance
Just a bit more humor on the situation.
...it made me open margin account to be able to SELL SCOX SHORT :) If you don't think they have a case as well, you might join me and do the same. Come on, its almost $12 a piece or twice the price before the case. And we all know its gonna be worth zero in few weeks.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
I know this has been asked before, but now I am serious, with SCOX trading around 10 a share, and the end being in sight, how, and why, would you short sell the stock?
__________
Love conquers all... except CANCER
All publicity is good publicity? If that was the case, Saddam should run for president.
Linux needs to be the next version of smoking in Hollywood. A character isn't cool unless he uses Linux in the movie.
To an outsider, this lawsuit probably sounds like the computer world fighting with itself. "I don't need this Unix/Linux stuff. Microsoft is for me!"
SCO wants money. IBM has some. This only hurts the *nix world. Even more if SCO wins.
If I had something intelligent to say, I would have said it.
It's 967AD and the restless SCO Villagers find a witch and are keen to burn her!
A secret meeting with Microsoft takes place to see if they can...
SCO: SCO Code! SCO Code! SCO Code! We've found SCO Code in Linux!
SCO LACKEY #1: We have found some SCO Code in Linux! May we burn it?
SCO: Burn the users! Burn! Burn it! Burn its users!
MICROSOFT: How do you know it is SCO Code?
SCO LACKEY #2: It looks like it.
SCO: Right! Yeah! Yeah!
MICROSOFT: Bring it forward.
GPL'd CODE: I'm not SCO Code. I'm not!
MICROSOFT: Uh, but you are dressed as such.
GPL'd CODE: They dressed me up like this.
SCO: Augh, we didn't! We didn't...
GPL'd CODE: And these aren't my comments. They're false ones.
MICROSOFT: Well?
SCO LACKEY #1: Well, we did do the comments.
MICROSOFT: The comments?
SCO LACKEY #1: And the copyright lines, but it is SCO Code!
SCO LACKEY #2: Yeah!
SCO: We burn it! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah!
MICROSOFT: Did you dress it up like this?
SCO: No! No. No. No. No. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah, a bit. A bit. It does look like UNIX though.
MICROSOFT: What makes you think it is SCO Code?
SCO LACKEY #3: Well, it turned me into Windows!
MICROSOFT: Windows?
SCO LACKEY #3: I got better.
SCO LACKEY #2: Burn it anyway!
SCO LACKEY #1: Burn!
SCO: Burn it! Burn! Burn it!...
MICROSOFT: Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether it is SCO Code.
SCO LACKEY #1: Are there?
SCO LACKEY #2: Ah?
SCO LACKEY #1: What are they?
SCO: Tell us! Tell us!...
MICROSOFT: Tell me. What do you do with SCO Code?
SCO: Compile it! Compile it! Compile! Complie!...
MICROSOFT: And what do you compile apart from SCO Code?
SCO LACKEY #1: More SCO Code!
SCO LACKEY #3: Shh!
SCO LACKEY #2: BSD Code!
MICROSOFT: So, why does SCO Code compile?
[pause]
SCO LACKEY #3: B--... 'cause its copied from... BSD?
MICROSOFT: Good! Heh heh.
SCO: Oh, yeah. Oh.
MICROSOFT: So, how do we tell whether it is copied from BSD?
SCO LACKEY #1: See if it builds with gcc?
MICROSOFT: Ah, but can you not also build Linux with gcc?
SCO LACKEY #1: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
MICROSOFT: Does BSD come under the GPL license?
SCO LACKEY #1: No. No.
SCO LACKEY #2: No, its free! We can do what we want with it commercially!
MICROSOFT: And what else are you free to use commercially?
SCO: Bread! Apples! Uh, very small rocks! Cider! Uh, gra-- gravy! Cherries! Mud! Uh, churches! Churches! Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR: Your Own Code!
SCO: Oooh.
MICROSOFT: Exactly. So, logically...
SCO LACKEY #1: If... it... has... been released by us commerically,... it's made of SCO Code.
MICROSOFT: Yes, and have you released it commercially?
SCO LACKEY #2: Yes! In our Linux Distribution!
SCO LACKEY #1: SCO Code! SCO Code! SCO Code! SCO Code! SCO Code! Burn it! Burn the users!
I swear, this is all i could think of this morning when i read the c|net.com.com.com.com article on their threat to move monday..
"Here is line of death in the sand, Friday, you cross this line, we revoke your AIX license rights and you die.
Ok, you cross this line on Monday and you die.
This line, you die.
This line, you die.
Nyaah, I'm going my house, you knock on my door, and I won't come out."
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Here's a PoP-based song that I found earlier today; maybe you haven't seen it yet.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
at least this suit has gotten Linux mentioned in many places where it normally wouldn't be.
yes, now everyone that heard about linux through this case will connect linux with 'that os that you can be fined a shitload of money for using because (...insert random stupid sco reason here...)'
GREAT! WONDERFUL! Now EVERYBODY has a good impression of linux.
Sig & Below
Yuck Fou
This is an interesting tidbit. Sun's license gives them rights to all and any derivative works of Unix.
In the informationweek article, SCO calls Linux the equivalent of napster in the enterprise world, which really isn't proper at all. Is it just me, or does it sound like SCO is starting to throw really wild punches? It seems their attacks are getting pretty libelous. The informationweek view seems to be that SCO might have a case, but SCO's press behavior is very, very odd.
Oh, well, it's all FUD until IBM decides to act publicly. Like everyone else here, I'm really curious to see where they plan to go with this charge.
wouldn't midnight Friday have already passed?
I guess that's a technicality.
Mmmm......sacrelicious.
if you follow the school of thought that all publicity is good publicity, at least this suit has gotten Linux mentioned in many places where it normally wouldn't be.
The entire reason this is being done is to plant FUD into the minds of IT and Business community about liablity in using Linux and Open Source alternatives. MS is behind it and they are doing what they do best. Planting FUD about a competitor.
On one hand you have to give them credit. No company in the history of mankind has ever done it better. On the other hand it is a low class, childish, unethical thing to do.
wow, mikey..you were pretty quick with that one. not 5 minutes later, it's down to -1. it's nice to see you can dish it out, but can't take it yourself.
Laura Didio says, "There are "bits and pieces" of copied material in Linux version 2.2, according to SCO. However, the vast majority of their claims centre around the later Linux 2.4 and 2.5 versions."
and then says that she was shown similar code in "Unix System V, version 4.1. Incidentally, this particular code is from the early 1980s, and hence predates Linus Torvalds' first Linux code."
But hang on a minute. Wouldn't early 80's Unix code be extremely primitive compared to Linux 2.2 and above? Would the kernel hackers really need to steal such ancient code for versions 2.4 and 2.5? Surely the Linux kernel must have been functionally equivalent (or superior) to early 80's Unix a long time ago?
HH
--
One thing I found incredibly annoying is her style -- why does she want to sould like a bimbo? Random crap about MIT and Stanford, and many!!! exclamation!!! points!!!!!!
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
I think my head will explode if I see one more illiterate nitwit typing "for all intensive purposes". Fifty times on the blackboard kid: for all intents and purposes. And 500 more times "I will not repeat a cliche if I don't understand it".
I'd like to note that if SCO Unix employed DRM technology, then they would have the power to remotely shutdown everyone who was no longer 'licensed'.
You know, I have not read every bit of press related to the SCO case, but this part is news to me. Laura Didio, the analyst who was so impressed with SCO's evidence, says:
I saw Unix System V, version 4.1. Incidentally, this particular code is from the early 1980s, and hence predates Linus Torvalds' first Linux code.
This answers the question about how SCO can be claiming that Linux copied features that don't exist in SCO Unix. Their claims of copied code revolve around AT&T's System V Code!
This means that in order to even get started on this case, SCO has to establish:
1) SCO has free and clear ownership of the AT&T System V code
2) IP rights to the AT&T System V code were not dilluted by the BSD settlement
I am not an expert on these issues, but they seem to be very high hurdles to clear.
My university's backbone mainframe is run on AIX the way I see it as soon as SCO revokes IBM's license my shitty grades are but a memory on some inaccessible backup tape. Hello med school.
I hold the patent to the code, cout "Hello world!"; I know can sue every website or book company that ever used that code!!! Hah! I rule the world now! And, what if SCO copied Linux's code, then the code would be the same...
http://codeus.info
from the Laura Didio interview:
Have you any previous experience in reading code?
No. And I am not a copyright attorney either.
However, for the purposes of authentication, I had a code developer present to review the materials with.
No one has greater respect for their inherent limitations than I do!!!
now that's just not nice...
Here's some more interesting news about SCO. According to Netcraft, SCO's website is ironically hosted on Linux.
I think you need a SCO job. Might help you relax.
the usual picture - no creativity, no innovation - the really have nothing to offer except for a few eager and overpaid (thanks to MS' early licensing) lawyers. We should be able to care less.
Anyone care to comment on the notions expressed in the CNET article that this case could have precedent in the Sherwood v, Walker? Is this "doctrine of mutual mistake" appropriately applied as precedent since it is a decision about property and not about copyright?
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
It's becoming more clear that IBM is just waiting around while Mr. McBride digs his company farther and farther into their own lies. The hype of the case is starting to wear off on the public, and in the end, SCO will have buried themselves with their own stories.
The best thing that could happen for IBM is apathy in the media and public about their case. If nobody cares about their allegations, they loose all of their FUD leverage. Public opinion already seems unwilling to bear anymore SCO news. On Monday, when the AIX licence is revoked and the world doesn't end, corporate America will just want McBride to shut up.
IBM's choice to remain relatively quiet throughout this contraversy will be to their benefit. They will end up looking like the wise sage. SCO will end up the silly jester.
.... at least this suit has gotten Linux mentioned in many places where it normally wouldn't be.
Same applies to SCO. Hell, i had forgotten them...
NO SIG
"NUMA (Non Uniform Memory access) a mechanism for enabling large multiprocessing systems, RCU (Read Copy Update) (and) SMP"
I am not completely familiar with the details of it, but don't the last two, RCU and SMP, both exist in FreeBSD?
Also this lady admits that she is not a copyright attorney nor is she a programmer, so she had a code analyst there with her reviewing the code. So why can't we get his or her opinion? Also, why would she give her statement on how the GPL works if she's neither a copyright attorney nor a programmer? Seems to me she was fed nearly everything she's saying.
i.e. Her statements and opinions are worth about as much as SCOX will be in a few months.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
...However, for the purposes of authentication, I had a code developer present to review the materials with. No one has greater respect for their inherent limitations than I do!!!
I guess she meant to say "No one has greater respect for inherent self-limitations than I do."
I think everyone at /. pretty much already knows the story. The headline makes it obvious that it is about SCO, and a quick look at the write up would make it clear that it is a round up of today's articles about SCO. Nothing needed to be in the headline other than SCO, so he thought he'd try to make us chuckle a bit.
And look on the bright side: if you follow the school of thought that all publicity is good publicity,...
/. saying "SCO 5uXor5. I hate SCO. I hope IBM crushes SCO"
10,000 posts on
SCO Marketing guys must be saying "10,000 posts mentioning SCO! GREAT!"
This is left as an exercise for the reader.
IBM: Trouble with Linux.
...' ... our chief weapons are surprise...blah blah blah. Cardinal, read the charges.
Linux Users: Oh no - what kind of trouble?
IBM: One on't shared codes gone owt askew on base code.
Linux Users: Pardon?
IBM: One on't shared codes gone owt askew on base code.
Linux Users: I don't understand what you're saying.
IBM: [slightly irritated and with exaggerated clear accent] One of the shared codes has gone out askew on the base code.
Linux Users: Well what on earth does that mean?
IBM: *I* don't know - Mr Wentworth just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble with Linux, that's all - I didn't expect a kind of SCO Inquisition.
[JARRING CHORD]
[The door flies open and CEO Darl McBride of Santa Cruz enters, flanked by two junior members. Chris Sontag has goggles pushed over his forehead. Cardinal Fang is just Cardinal Fang]
Darl McBride: NOBODY expects the SCO Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to money.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
[The Inquisition exits]
IBM: I didn't expect a kind of SCO Inquisition.
[JARRING CHORD]
[The SCO Group burst in]
Darl McBride: NOBODY expects the SCO Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to money, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn!
[To Chris Sontag] I can't say it - you'll have to say it.
Chris Sontag: What?
Darl McBride: You'll have to say the bit about 'Our chief weapons are
Chris Sontag: [rather horrified]: I couldn't do that...
[Darl McBride bundles them outside again]
IBM: I didn't expect a kind of SCO Inquisition.
[JARRING CHORD]
[The SCO Group enter]
Chris Sontag: Er.... Nobody...um....
Darl McBride: Expects...
Chris Sontag: Expects... Nobody expects the...um...the SCO...um...
Darl McBride: Inquisition.
Chris Sontag: I know, I know! Nobody expects the SCO Inquisition. In fact, those who do expect -
Darl McBride: Our chief weapons are...
Chris Sontag: Our chief weapons are...um...er...
Darl McBride: Surprise...
Chris Sontag: Surprise and --
Darl McBride: Okay, stop. Stop. Stop there - stop there. Stop. Phew! Ah!
Fang: You are hereby charged that you did on diverse dates commit copyright infringement against the SCO Group. 'My old man said follow the--'
Chris Sontag: That's enough.
[To Linux Users] Now, how do you plead?
Linux Users: We're innocent.
Darl McBride: Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
[DIABOLICAL LAUGHTER]
Chris Sontag: We'll soon change your mind about that!
[DIABOLICAL ACTING]
Darl McBride: Fear, surprise, and a most ruthless-- [controls himself with a supreme effort] Ooooh! Now, Chris -- the rack!
[Chris Sontag produces a plastic-coated dish-drying rack. Darl McBride looks at it and clenches his teeth in an effort not to lose control. He hums heavily to cover his anger]
Darl McBride: You....Right! Tie them down.
[Fang and Chris Sontag make a pathetic attempt to tie them on to the drying rack]
Darl McBride:Right! How do you plead?
Linux Users: Innocent.
Darl McBride: Ha! Right! Chris, give the rack [oh dear] give the rack a turn.
[Chris Sontag stands their awkwardly and shrugs his shoulders]
Chris Sontag: I....
Darl McBride: [gritting his teeth] I *know*, I know you can't. I didn't want to say anything. I just wanted to try and ignore your crass mistake.
Chris Sontag: I...
Darl McBride: It makes it all seem so stupid.
Chris Sontag: Shall I...?
Darl McBride: No, just pretend for God's sake. Ha! Ha! Ha!
[Chris Sontag turns an imaginary handle on the side of the dish-rack]
[Cut to them torturing a man, Linus Torvalds]
Darl McBride: Now, Li
I just heard some great news on talk radio - SCO CEO Darl McBride was found dead in his London, Utah home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him, even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his accidental contributions to GPL. Truly an American CEO douche bag.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
She only sounds like a "bimbo" to you. I wasn't even aware that she was a woman until you pointed it out. Perhaps you've got a little problem with women and technology? It's the 21st century, get with it.
"Oh yeah, the source for Linux and the source for Unixware look exactly the same."
"What's that? No, I have never looked at source code before in my life, but it's obvious, isn't it? Look at the way there's an 'if', followed by some stuff, and then the next line is indented. Plagiarism is the only possible explanation."
"And look at all of these file names that are the same! 'stdio.h', 'stdlib.h', 'sys/types.h'! I tell you, Linux is in one world of hurt!"
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
Sure, IBM will win, unless perhaps Microsoft joins in the fight in some way, but all this, "IBM will crush you! They are huuuge!" is dangerous. It is never good to support richest-player-wins justice, and in the case of OSS usually means backing the losing side. Back IBM's case on its technical merits, but go no further.
IBM licensed some code from SCO (or from AT&T but SCO inherited the deal) and used it to help them in AIX (to what extent is unknown).
Now SCO has a beef with IBM because they think they put some code that IBM got from a later version of the same product (Unixware, via Monterey deal) into Linux.
Using this beef, that still hasn't been proved in court or anywhere else than by SCO telling us it is true, they want to yank IBM's Unix code license and thus prevent not only IBM from shipping new versions of AIX until SCO's code is removed from it so they don't have a claim but also RETROACTIVELY to every copy of AIX that was sold in the last 15 or so years.
If they really manage to pull up sch a legal stunt (highly doubtful, it's more likely that they just are full of crap) it would mean that any piece of proprietary software made by company A that incorporate some licensed code from another company B could become illegal if company B yank the license of company A for any reason and without needing to prove a damn thing.
This seems like a big reason NOT to use proprietary software, to recap:
Free Software: Perpetual license (at least fro the GPL and BSD), code can only be declared illegal by court decision. Later versions with amended source code are legal (like the *BSD's after the settlement). Dute to the speed of development of the Free Softwre community the delay between the court ruling making a version illegal and a cleaned up version would be very small. Earlier versions can also be easily cleaned up if necessary to avoid upgrading.
Proprietary software (if SCO's stunt miraculously works): Even if your license is supposedly perpetual by contract with the vendor another company that had no business with you can come by and say that due to a dispute between them and said vendor your version is illegal. No need for a court ruling or to prove anything you assert (according to SCO). You cannot modify the software to make it legal (no code) and it is unlikely that the vendor will be willing to modify all the older versions still used by their clients so they don't need to upgrade it.
Which one is better for business already?
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Topic Shift: I was originally skeptical of SCO's Linux claims, butI have to admit that after reading the comments of some of the analysts who have looked at the code, I'm thinking SCO may have something. Their comments about the comments being identical are especially telling. Being a programmer myself, I can always tell when someone has borrowed something when the comments match. It's almost like a fingerprint for many developers.
If it turns out to be true, it has to be a serious black mark of Linux's ethical credibility. How can the Linux community wag its collective finger at companies for their practices when its guilty of its own immoral conduct.
Having been a Linux fan before, I personally am becoming very disenchanted, and have moved my Unix development to Mac OS X.
BTW, wasn't their some issue a while back about code from the FreeBSD network stack being put into Linux, violating the BSD License? Does any know if that was resolved one way or the other?
--- igiveup ---
I havn't seen even single comment or post (atleast not moderated high enough) which have actually thought through this.
/. crowd is in for a huge shock. In fact as each day builds their myths is getting destroyed
Here is the list of stupid arguments from the supposedly intelligent crowd.
1) Open source crowd will replace the code in minutes(Just becuase you buy a new car doesn't mean you are absolved of stealing a car)
2) There are only 80 lines of code out of 5 millions(One analyst saw 80 lines oout of many violations, doesn't mean they have only 80 lines of code in violation, again basic logic 101)
3) SCO is going down (yeah use that line of defense in front of the judge)
4) SCO is money hungry (as though IBM is rebirth of Gandhi/Jesus)
5) IBM will crush them.
The fact is unless IBM acts quickly
Remember how you jumped in joy when Novell, Open Group all made claims about Unix copyright?
Remember how you all claimed about main(); for(i=0); as being copied?
Remember how you trashed Laura claiming her not to be a developer?
The fact is, this is bigger than what you have imagined. Grow up, Wake up and keep the pipe you have been smoking all along.
Don't have much time at the moment, but in case nobody has posted these yet:
NOTE: German Language
A German developer (who says that he didn't sign their NDA!) reports on SCO's "evidence". He says that he's seen 46 pages (not just 80 lines) but doesn't seem convinced.
In another article, Claybrook gives more details of how the story changed, and also remarks on some rather odd things about SCO's "evidence".
SCO is still hiding the claims behind NDO's and only showing the claimed 80 lines of copied code with comments to people who will sign the NDO's. Why? 80 lines of code hardly would compromise SCO intellectual property in any way. Could it be that are more concerned that if the openly disclosed the 80 lines of code with comments, the actual author who wrote them might see them and recognize them, and be able to show that they were stolen into SCO UNIX rather than stolen from SCO Unix?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Wouldn't early 80's Unix code be extremely primitive compared to Linux 2.2 and above?
You are correct! However, it's been murder trying to get some working code for MFM and RLL drives, so we had to look that far back!
---
"Death is nature's way of saying `Howdy'".
Not only have we been put into a "holding pattern" wrt Linux, my rabidly anti-MS boss has just approved spending nearly $100K, at a time when we haven't really got the money to be doing this, on upgrading our entire NT4 network infrastructure to Windows 2003 since he now thinks that the whole prospect of migrating to Linux & Samba is completely sunk now. He also has put in his 90-day notice to retire, significantly influenced by this SCO circus. He was going to stay on another year and hopefully see a Linux migration well under way to completion, but has completely thrown in the towel. Oh well, at least he's looking after us poor systems grunts in that we'll now get plenty of hands on experience with MS's latest technology, which will only enhance our resumes too, and keep us that much more employable for the future.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Funniest thing I've read all day...
Posting anon for obvious reasons. Plus I'm preturbed that my project got soused.
My company was one of those who recieved the letter from SCO a month ago. We think this is because we've successfully deployed Linux for a some high profile projects and my boss has been quoted on the topic in InfoWorld several times. Naturally, it wasn't taken that seriously, but the information tech advisory committee decided to look into it, and the (Linux-based) project I was heading up got temporarily put on hold.
As we're also a big IBM RS/6000 shop, someone called the rep and asked for IBM to clarify their position on the lawsuit. From what I heard, the guy clammed up and suggested that we arrange a face-to-face meeting with one of their representatives specializing in intellectual property issues. Well, ears perked up at that.
So, the special IBM IP salesdroid flys out from Boulder CA just for a meeting with the IT committee. According my boss, he basically assures them that AIX has no problems and won't be taken off the market, so our existing investment in P-SERIES is safe. Nobody had even thought about AIX up to this point -- the huge question on their minds was the legality of Linux.
But then, as my boss told it, the rep basically "Took The Fifth" on the Linux question and refused to deny SCO's claims. Then he started a pitch on 'Grid Computing', but was cut off. The committee then decided that without IBM's assurances, all Linux-based projects would be suspended indefinitely! As a long time supporter of IBM and Linux (ran RedHat 2.1 on a PS/2 Model 69, as a matter of fact), I was rightfully pissed off at the fact that IBM wouldn;t stand behind their excessive advertisements of LInux! (plus my job was at stake)
Soon the political gears were in motion. I tried to pass along Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond's excellent legally sound arguments, but they were too no avail. Ostpus Gusbosus. Now, there's lots of old time SUN admins here who never really liked the idea of Linux coming in. So, before I knew it, SUN reps had converged in touting their renewed commitment to Solaris x86. Given the lack of legal issues, they successfully sold the PHBs on top.
Well, at least my project was given a tentative go-ahead (no pink slip, w00t!), but I had to deal with "Slowaris"! (At least it looked like that M$ won't get to make another proposal.) After confirming that our DELL servers were supported, I went ahead with my testing. Turns out that with Solaris x86, we could handle a 20% higher sustained O(1) load pattern on the same hardware cluster, and the n-to-m thread management interface solved several long standing problems we were having with Linux 9.0. Slowlaris Indeed!
I have to admit I was all wrong about SUN -- this is a very nice operating environment for our porpoises. In a matter of a couple weeks, I've become a convert to the power and elegance of genuine UNIX System V Release 4. In fact, if this goes well, management will probably move all of our existing Linux installations over to SUN, with the exception of the big 8-way ComPAQ. (Ironically we'll have to test UnixWare there for SMP scalability reasons. No way Win2003 can take it, I'm sure.)
I recommend to all slashdotters affected by SCO's bullshit IP claims that they look into SUN's very performant and affordable Open Systems OS. As they say, UNIX is like sex -- It's better if you don't have to fake it!
The head of your IT department will be roaring with laughter.
Banaaaana!
In the story about Laura Didio's review, it quotes a SCO spokesman as saying that there are "hundreds of thousands of derivitave lines of code" (derivitive of original SCO code.) So there are kernel developers around the world that all congregated at IBM during the SCO/IBM collaboration and then took various pieces of it away, derived about half of the Linux kernel, then snuck it all in... right?
Oh, that and none of the Apollo missions actually landed on the moon; it was all staged in special government studios in Arizona.
And about that tinfoil helmet...
Please.
IANAL, but at least one nitwit in the story is. The doctrine of mutual mistake would not apply here. I would assume, as a layperson, that the doctrine exists to keep one party from fast-talking a second, less sophisticated party into something that the second party has no experience with and is therefore easily duped.
This cannot be said of SCO. SCO had access to many intellectual property lawyers who are able to adequately advise SCO on the cost/benefit ratio of GPL software. If SCO neglected to consult those attorneys, or decided to proceed with distributing its code under the GPL despite advice to the contrary, then SCO is uniquely responsible for the results.
So distributing Caldera/SCO Linux for such a long time, when all the terms and conditions are intricately known by all involved parties (the GPL has been publicly and exhaustively debated on many forums), then SCO, being the duly authorized copyright owner, can readily be seen as willingly authorizing the distribution of its IP. Hence the doctrine of mutual mistake is irrelevent.
To an outsider, this lawsuit probably sounds like the computer world fighting with itself. "I don't need this Unix/Linux stuff. Microsoft is for me!"
You're spot-on correct. You can read my story of one MS victory, due to this debacle, right here.
Yeah, it's a "me too." I'm just glum because I think they will crash before I can transfer enough funds into my account to make a real killing.
/. You want to know dates ahead of time and a good guess on the rulings and evidence ahead of time. Read the check-in logs and correlate them with witnesses. And don't do too much margin, IBM could always settle out of court instead of squashing them, it's also possible that Unixware won't fall under the GPL when this all works itself out, so they may still be a viable, if crippled company for a few more years. Shorts are _dated_, and the contracts are market priced so if too many people want to short the price can still be to high.
BTW anyone wanting to make "easy money" should follow the case better than
I'd like to see some kernel hackers sue SCO in forums at all ends of the world. A really spectacular end to the whole thing would be fun to watch.
*gets out his chalk and goes to the board* "No sir, I'll never do it again."
Down towards the bottom.
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Fee! Fie! Sco! Scum!
I smell the blood of a SCO-lishman.
Be he 'live, or be he dead,
I'll grind his bones to make my bread.
As this is how a 5 year old would behave.
We're trying to /. their site :)
I have seen many scenarios over the last few days that ask the question "what if SCO was right and there was some Unix code in Linux?"
But I am not sure this is so interesting to wonder about it.
Let's suppose that there is indeed many blocks of 10-15 lines of code that come from Unix and went into Linux (and not from a common source or the other way around). Let's further suppose that is was indeed put there by IBM (to avoid speculating about as yet nonexistent lawsuits against Linux companies). Now I ask the question:
Is that code really worth one frickin' BILLION dollars?
I mean, to prove that it was worth that much they would have not only to prove that it was there and that IBM put it there but also that it was crucial enough to transform Linux from a "bicycle" to a "sports car".
Also, I don't know how much SCO makes from Unix licenses each year but I wonder how long it would take for them to make one billion dollars from their Unix licensing program.
I also wonder how much less money they have made from said licensing program since IBM supposedly put that code here.
The more you look at it, no matter what angle, the less sense it makes.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
My SCO stock is going through the roof!!!! This is awesome. I thought that stock was going to be totally worthless but, now I find that it has trippled in value in the last two weeks!
I hate what they are doing to Linux but, I'm gonna make some MONEY!!!!
Go SCO. Go SCO. Go SCO. Go SCO. Go SCO. Go SCO. Go SCO. Go SCO.
Most companies - in industries other than SCO's - don't create treaties to look for loopholes to shaft the other guy.
Up until 15 years ago, some of my industry's biggest treaties were "gentlemens' agreements" - sometimes largely verbal, where large companies would agree to long-term ways of conducting business with each other. The spirit of the deal was what mattered. Breaking the spirit of these would lead to the company being ostracized by its peers. So everyone played nice.
We got away from them primarily to save people the trouble of having to rely on their memories.
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
Before this lawsuit, SCOX was selling for $2 a share, today SCOX almost hit $12 a share. Nearly 600% increase. Not bad.
This for a company that has never turned a profit in it's existance, and has a book value of $0.67.
Top execs at scox are selling their shares like mad. Can you blame them?
Say what you want, but those execs at SCOX really know how to use the legal system to their advantage!
Encouraging people to waste SCO's bandwidth because they're being stupid is petty and immoral.
:)
On the other hand, it's perfectly fine and moral for you to "vote" by preparing statements for any court case that will result, warning any of your friends in IT who have just returned from a 6 month spelunking adventure that SCO's management can't be sane if they think they can revoke pre-existing licenses, and therefore you don't think they should ever risk future business with SCO, and selling short their stock (assuming you still can).
You don't complain about someone not playing nice by playing naughty yourself. You do it by being scrupulously decent. The resulting contrast makes it all the more obvious how wrong they are to anyone watching, by the way.
p.s. if you don't believe the morality argument, that's fine. Think of this, however: would you rather that SCO lose all its money to hosting companies, ISPs, and telecoms, or to a Linux-and-open-source-promoting vendor like IBM? And I ask that as someone who misses his ISP job, even
Get off my launchpad!
SCO J. Simpson?
One shouldn't repeat a cliche without knowing the hysterical raisins of its development.
-- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".
doesn't seem to know much in terms of the technical... but does seem to have connections to Microsoft... we're all biased in this... that's why I want to see it go to court!
Oh yeah, to the mh.com.au questioner:
gpl != public_domain
Why do the same posts show up on every SCO story. This one & the dukes of hazzard one mainly.
Karma Sluts, all of you.
If you don't have anything new to say, the STFU.
Thank you.
Really! They are doing us a favor. How?
Well, the simple answer is that the GPL and linux need a good high profile test in order to establish their legitimacy to the business world. Sure, the GPL is well written and understandable - but until its really tested no one knows.
A second point: they went right after the biggest dog. The way to really screw linux would have been to start with the little guys. Run them out of cash and start setting some legal precedent. Once set, linux would have been in real trouble. But IBM has some of the best IP lawyers (and in house facilities for tracking IP) in the world. The chances that IBM will lose this case are almost nothing.
So, my hat is off to SCO. The most wonderful way for a company to commit suicide I have ever seen!
I support Howard Dean for President.
SCO VP cacheing out? I'm starting to change my mind about their motives... I used to think it was to get bought out to benefit their sharedholders. Now I'm beginning to think it was to artificially inflate their stock price so the insiders can cash out, before they reveal their non-existent legal case and the company crashes permanently. Good 'ol fashioned screw-the-shareholders maneuver... and after all their talk about "doing what's right for the shareholders"?
-j
I resemble that insulation.
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
I don't think anyone in the kernel hacker community cares a lot about whether or not SCO and/or IBM burn in hell or crush each other or enter Valhalla; it's interesting gossip and speculation, sure! But the work will go on.
One thing we know for certain is that there's a severe shortage of facts in this case. As long as SCO doesn't actually give us any facts, they're full of shit, regardless of whether or not the "Slashdot crowd" bury their heads in the sand. There is no "Slashdot crowd;" there are only individuals who post their opinions on Slashdot.Unlimited growth == Cancer.
SCO Group's goal isn't to "chase every company that's selling Linux," McBride says. The goal is to get its fair share of revenue from its intellectual property.
While he is not quoted exactly, this is easy to decipher what the article means he really said. The antecedent for the "its" that is right before "intellectual property" is "Linux". The antecedent for the "its" that is right before "fair share" is "SCO Group's". So in another words he said, "The goal is to get SCO Group's fair share of revenue from Linux's intellectual property," or something very similar to this. So they want distro makers to pay them licensing fees?!
Don't have much time at the moment, but in case nobody has posted these yet:
NOTE: German Language
A German developer (who says that he didn't sign their NDA!) reports on SCO's "evidence". He says that he's seen 46 pages (not just 80 lines) but doesn't seem convinced.
In another article, Claybrook gives more details of how the story changed, and also remarks on some rather odd things about SCO's "evidence".
And I suppose you think your minimalist, moronic bracket collection up there is supposed to be an intelligent rebuttal? Take my advice. Read a few books, maybe the next time you decide to spout bullshit you'll be able to spell properly.
And what is "keep the pipe you have been smoking all along" supposed to mean anyway, oh wise and illiterate one? Is that your idea of a witty remark? It doesn't even make sense. Assuming the people here who have something intelligent to say (that is, people other than you and your type) are all "smoking" a pipe, how would "keeping" it solve the problem exactly? Even if they did grow up and wake up, they'd still be stoned, according to you. So much for your "basic logic 101."
Why don't you just go back to jerking off and posting "BSD is dying" crapfloods over and over? That seems to be what you pricks are best at anyway.
What looks like the "safe" choice now for you PHB's will look illadvised in a year or so. Second if Solaris does the job no big deal, no skin off Linux's nose.
You company was not planning to give much back to the community from what I gather.
Help fight continental drift.
C'mon, didn't you learn anything from Slashdot's Napster coverage? It was beaten until it was dead, and then beaten some more.
The coolest voice ever.
Couple of quotes from the Ira- erm SCO information minster Darl McBride...
"I blame IBM - they are marketing for the Linux users.!"
"Our initial assessment is that they(Linux Users) will all die"
"God will roast their (IBM's) stomachs in hell at the hands of SCO."
'We have destroyed 2 laser printers, CPUs, 2 T1's and their shovels - We have driven them back."
"We will welcome them with lawsuits and shoes."
"Their linux users are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of SCO. Be assured, SCO is safe, protected."
"On this occasion, I am not going to mention the number of lines of code who were copied and the number of misappropriated trade secrets. The operation continues"
NO", snapped Mr al-Sa-erm Darl McBride, "We have proof. There is plenty of code there. I will take you there and show you. IN ONE HOUR!"
"IBM, this company is a war criminal, and we will see that he is brought to trial"
"The GNU license....[is] a place for prostitution under the feet of Linux Users."
About Linus Torvalds: "the leader of the international criminal gang of bastards."
About Torvalds and Cringely: "Those only deserve to be hit with shoes."
Damn Ir-erm SCOvians.
Quit modding this damn link up. It's been karma-whored out in every SCO story for the last few weeks.
and can someone please translate this asap? If genuine (no particular reason to believe that it is of course) this is crucial!
How about you direct your comments at someone specifically instead of just insulting everyones intelligence?
Methinks you're the one who needs to do some waking/growing up.
to have such a name, that resembles to this filthy SCOX incident.
mod parent up! thank you
I wouldn't expect lawyers for either side to divulge all of their evidence in advance. IBM and SCO are just now beginning the "discovery phase" of the suit. So I anticipate that more revelations will be forthcoming over the next couple of months.
Huh?! SCO is just "discovering" things so they can't come forward and stop the supposed infringment by publishing it and telling everyone to cease and dissist? Yet they know it's cost the at least one billion dollars!? The code was from 1980's era Unix but this is not about copyright? That code is well known and publishded but they consider it a trade secret? It lacks all the advanced code they call "enterprise grade" but IBM stole those features from SCO? When are these SCO idiots going to get their story straight?
It's so undignified, I'm embarassed to watch. Laura Didio, it's obvious you have been pulled in way over your head. Recognize that people who would restrict what you can tell others have something to hide and get out of it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This is actually the worst kind of publicity that Linux could receive. Look, we all know what SCO is trying to do, and we all are pretty sure that they're not going to get very far in doing it (at least we hope so). It's transparent to those in the know what's going on.
But those in the know aren't the only one reading these reports. If you're a smallish company and you're thinking about migrating to Linux, reading news reports about how companies are getting sued for using Linux -- whether or not it's likely that you yourself will get sued -- is going to turn you off to the idea.
Yes, Linux is getting mentioned a lot. But it's getting mentioned in FUDdish, scary ways that are likely to leave a bad impression on people who don't know much about it. That hurts Linux, not helps it.
looks like the aussie computerworld article got slashdotted, but here's a similar one: http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/gove rnment/legalissues/story/0,10801,82070,00.html
Jobs? Which jobs?
Let's have some good old-boy capitalist discussion here. I'd like to make some money off this situation. I'd like suggestions on how to go about doing so. Here's a couple of facts and/or givens for purposes of this discussion:
1) I firmly believe that SCO is utterly wrong and will eventually be shown so to the entire world
2) I don't know how long it will take for #1 to come about
3) You can't buy or sell options on SCOX (or at least not through the CBOE, is there another market that does trade SCOX options?)
4) SCOX is very illiquid - about 100M shares, only about 3M are in the float
5) Selling short has a max profit of 100% if SCOX goes to zero, I'd like something that would return multiples of my investment should SCOX go to zero, or even just back where it came from a few months ago
6) SCOX closed around $11 a share today, 3 months ago, they were around $3 a share
Ok, there you have it so far. What kind of choices are available for exploiting this current situation with SCOX given that list.
And please, no jokes about:
1) Post to slashdot about SCOX
2) ????
3) Get Rich!!!
Certainly #1, although considered a fact around here is nowhere near set in concrete and that's what makes any investment along these lines risky (and probably why SCOX's share price has more than tripled recently).
"The Linux business model was bound to change..."
Mr. Mcbride is showing that he just doesn't understand that Linux is not a business model.
Linux is a reality of the market. Deal with it.
Free Software and Open Source are ralities of the market. Deal with that too.
If someone wants to contribute to the industry through Open Source and Free licensing, they can.
No entrance fee required.
For the first time in the history of the industrial revolution, an educated hobbyist can create something that will take business a corporation.
And nothing can be done about it. No legislation required.
And no amount of hair gel will change anything.
Read, L
Near the bottom of the InformationWeek roundup SCO's McBride states:
"The notion that you're going to run a Fortune 1,000 company on something that in the end could be more like Napster than an enterprise software system, it's a big question mark."
The efforts of thousands of dedicated, skilled programmers working for years to develop one of the most beneficial collections of software ever devised... yep, just like Napster!
Laura Didio at least identified some of the code areas: "The claims are not limited to just one area of the Unix System V kernel. SCO claims there are multiple instances of copyright violations. SCO said these include: NUMA (Non Uniform Memory access) a mechanism for enabling large multiprocessing systems, RCU (Read Copy Update) (and) SMP."
As far as NUMA goes, this is clearly aimed at the Monterey project. For a good laugh read the SCO Press Release on Industry Support for Project Monterey
I don't see how SCO can make it's "mutual mistake" (aka the pregnant cow) argument for NUMA. Their SCO Linux 4 datasheet advertises NUMA functionality as a feature of the GPL'd "Linux kernel 2.4.19" and trumps up SCO's Linux expertise and support for this kernel. I really don't see how they can win a trade secret case when they ADVERTISE and SUPPORT the open source release of the secret.
I've read the links above, and have been following the claims from both sides of this issue, and have come to a conclusion:
Linux development cannot be stopped.
I reached this conclusion by looking solely at how Linux has been created. The kernel has progressed through the efforts of thousands of contributors from around the world. Each of them can lay a legal claim to portions of the kernel. They contributed to the kernel under the full knowledge that no one could take their contribution away based on IP rights. Are these developers going to stop developing if SCO's claims prove to be true?
Also, what does SCO hope to secure from the Linux community? They are guilty of distibuting the very product that they claim infringes on their IP. I believe that they do have a right to object to full integration of their property without their concent. That said, I do not believe that their property should be GPL'ed without their permission. But how does their claim of ignorance trump Red Hat, Slackware, SuSE, or any other vendor? They had access to the UnixWare source. If they were duped and claim that in court, then they can hardly claim that these other vendors were willful in their conduct. In short, I can't see how they are going to make much headway against the other Linux vendors.
I also don't see where SCO gets the idea that people will pay them for a license to use Linux. The developer community will simply strip out the offending code and will ship the kernel out as a fork. All of the contributors to the kernel will make their claim to their portions of the infringing code and will incorporated it legally into the fork.
SCO will not kill Linux, nor will it kill community development of software. The auditing process will just become more robust.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
But mentions of RCU, NUMA, and SMP would mean that those areas of the kernel would be a REALLY good place to start looking.
Isn't IBM the primary contributor of the NUMA code?
http://oss.software.ibm.com/linux/news/?project_id =56
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
where can i get me a copy of that?
"Any publicity is good publicity," she said.
This may be a naieve but if there is contentious code in the kernel and the code in contention handles parallel processing, why can't you just not compile the offending code. By taking out the code, there is no issue. I suppose that is one reason that IBM is targeted. I am sure that Linux on Mainframes need the multiprocessor support. It seems to me that if you are not using multiprocessing then you do not need to include that support in the kernel. I may be missing the boat though.
LEPP
1) So far what SCO has done is the equivalent of calling the police and claiming that a certain person has stolen your car, then refusing to provide a license number or description of the car.
2) SCO said they would be showing hundreds of lines of matching code. They showed several pieces of code, under NDA and out of context, some of which was as long as 80 lines matching.
3) SCO has less revenue every year. They are "going down".
4) SCO is money hungry, see above. No one has said IBM is a saint here, just that this is like an ant attacking an elephant.
5) Which is what an elephant would do to an ant if the ant were foolish enough to attack the elephant.
It seems that each day SCO's claims are being demolished, in public no less.
People were happy when Novell and Open Group made thier statements, because it showed the SCO was not telling the truth. Which seems to be the majority opinion around here. Or do you normally weep when someone agrees with your opinion?
The main(); for(i=0); bits were humor. You may want to look the word up.
Laura is not a developer, by her own admission.
Yes, it is bigger. SCO is trying to bust the GPL and get all of Linux (except thier allegedly copied parts) declared public domain so that they can then claim to own all of Linux, without having to deal with the authors of any code from outside SCO.
Yep, boys and girls, SCO aims to steal Linux. At least, that's my opinion on the matter.
Didio: "Check the GPL and look at Section 0. It reads that the legal copyright holder of the source code has to explicitly put an assignment and copyright transfer notice into the beginning of the GPL. There is no concept of accidentally giving away the code to the GPL."
That's not what my copy of the GPL says. It says "This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License."
Further copying and modification are separate. The original author of the program placed the program under the GPL, and it and all distributed derivative works are likewise under the GPL.
If someone modifies and distributes the code, they don't in any way have to reaffirm the GPL notice. They certainly are not required to add additional copyright notices.
Didio's comment about the GPL is a complete misrepresentation, and she reveals herself here as an SCO pawn. I have no reason to believe anything else she said.
I think he meant "Ostus Gustobus"
Which roughly translates to "they eat thier young" (or something close).
I really don't want to know the details.
Read, L
German. Bah.
You insensitive porpoise!
Smiles and waits for Jeffs head to expode.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The USL/BSD case was settled out of court. No legal judgment was made.
while ( 1 )z ip sco.com/images/pdf/ecomsktop/ecomsktop_24_it.pdf sco.com/images/pdf/aep/UW7NET~1.PDF sco.com/images/pdf/06032002.mp3 sco.com/images/pdf/q2.mp3 http://www.sco.com/images/pdf/12-11-01.mp3 sco.com/images/pdf/aep/OS5NET~1.PDF sco.com/images/pdf/unixware/946000000b.pdf )
/dev/null $file
foreach file ( sco.com/images/pdf/education/SCO_AEP_posterfiles.
wget -O
end
end
It appears that some of the URLs are no longer valid, maybe they were brought down (for some, *ahem* reason?).
Sorry yet I don't do /bin/sh!
Enjoy!
OK wiseguys. find a way to GPL all of windows using the license M$ST bought from SCO.
Following the link on NZHeretic's lwn article, I did googled Trillian and SCO, and came across this article from the Register, 20 July 2000 by Andrew Orlowski. The opening paragraph is interesting: "According to reports - well, one anyway - Caldera Systems and the Santa Cruz Operation are in discussions which could see the Linux company acquire SCO's OpenServer and UnixWare operating systems. SCO also owns the rights to the Unix trademark, and sits atop a pile of ye originale AT&T Unix code, some of which it's been judiciously leaking as open source over the past year." Anyone have any idea what AT&T Unix code the old SCO "judiciously" leaked as open source?
I've asked this elsewhere (no answers yet)
Would IBM have been stupid enough to sign a license that would hand over to AT&T any IBM property that IBM decided to add to AIX?
____
In the mid-1990s, Sun paid more than $100 million to Novell for a Unix royalty buyout and the ability to redistribute the Unix source code in derivative works, he says. Novell owned the rights to Unix at the time. "Sun wanted to control their destiny related to derivative works," McBride says, while IBM paid $10 million to buy the rights to an older Unix. It allegedly didn't pay for the rights to bypass the owner of Unix on derivative works.
SOOooo I looked around on their website....nope...can'e download an entire package of OpenLinux....and then I thought....wait a second..support! shouldn't ceasing support of a product that they sold a few weeks ago put them under some kinda liability?? so i dug around on the ftp site....and it didn't take to long to find exactly what i was looking for. ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Work station/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/.
The Linux kernel packed in source RPM format! yes, they ARE still distributing the source code for very thing which they believe contains their own proprietary code!
Please keep in my that my ADHD keeps me a little scatter brained and I sometimes can't focus long enough to
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Serv er/current/
They seem to have their whole distro available.
Now, according the position paper put together by ESR, SCO's OpenServer doesn't contain NUMA and has crappy SMP.
The question then becomes, if SCO has these things, where did they get them from?
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Hey, I just downloaded kernel 2.4.21.
;)
And under bluetooth you have it:
"Say Y here to compile SCO support into the kernel or say M to compile it as module (sco.o)"
Looks like IBM is guilty after all...
I would like this to be seen by Mr. McBride anyone that can get this to him, feel free to do so.
Mr. McBride,
Are you aware that most of the IT industry is now against you? Are you aware that the only friend you have is Microsoft? Are you aware of how Microsoft treats it's friends? Are you aware that I'm using the term "friend" loosely?
Can you be 100% sure that SCO source was copied into Linux? There are insiders in your company that say code was copied from Linux to improve SCO's "Linux Personality". Are you aware that while doing that very thing the source code MUST be released back to the community? If your company has copied code from Linux into SCO for any reason what so ever, you are in violation of the GPL if you haven't released that code. If you release that code, your claim on Intellectual property might very well go out the window as well.
The fact that you have made everyone sign an NDA keeps them from speaking out that maybe they saw code going the other direction. Not in the direction you claim. The fact you would make Linus Torvald's sign an NDA to look at the offending code is attrocious as he is the key person involved in Linux development.
It appears your move is not protecting your IP, but rather filling your pockets. There is a difference, I'm sure you're aware. If you wanted your IP protected, you would allow the one man who can accomplish the removal of the code to see it. But if you want a percentage, I'm sure we can do that for you. 10% of 0 = 0
SCO is dying, you're just speeding that process up with this kind of tactic. Microsoft has already learned that fighting head to head against something with a community like Linux has will only hurt you. It seems that you're about to get the same lesson.
With that said, I urge you to reconsider your actions before the taint on yourself and SCO becomes so thick it will never wash off. Speaking for myself, and I'm sure quite a few others will agree, that I would look to other solutions long before I would consider any "Unix" that has purchased a license from your company simply because of your actions since December. So you're not only hurting yourself, you're now hurting your "partners".
Signed,
Happy Open Source IT technician
What if IBM really wants to support their hardware business with open source software. They could be hushng up because they don't want to bitch slap SCO and say back off. Maybe they are luring them into court for a ruling that SCO stole Linux code, and they must GPL it. That would mean AIX would have GPL code in it and they need to GPL it. This would allow IBM to have the ability and the excuse to make AIX open source. They could then have the increased security benifits of open source and still sell their expensive hardware to run it on.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Here is the list of stupid arguments from the supposedly intelligent crowd.
/. crowd is in for a huge shock. In fact as each day builds their myths is getting destroyed
And here's a list of stupid comments from someone who's implying that he's more intelligent than the "supposedly intelligent crowd" he's criticizing:
The fact is unless IBM acts quickly
The fact is that IBM can't "act quickly" - SCO has taken them to court. IBM's response can only be as fast as the court system will allow. If you think they should be releasing press releases like SCO, you're more of a moron than you appear from your comments.
Remember how you jumped in joy when Novell, Open Group all made claims about Unix copyright?
Yes, and there still hasn't been anything from SCO that would prove that wrong.
Remember how you all claimed about main(); for(i=0); as being copied?
"We all" - I never made any such claims. There were a few people who made jokes about it, but you have a pretty selective view of thing if you think everyone on Linux's side made such a claim, and was serious about it.
What color is the sky in your world?
Remember how you trashed Laura claiming her not to be a developer?
Yes, and she admits in this article that she's not a developer
The fact is, this is bigger than what you have imagined.
No, it's pretty much exactly what "we" imagined.
Grow up,
Physician, heal thyself.
Wake up and keep the pipe you have been smoking all along.
Again, what color is the sky in your world?
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/21722.html
::I am not completely familiar with the details of it, but don't the last two, RCU and SMP, both exist in FreeBSD?
I never heard of RCU, so I did a Google search for it. From http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/rcupdate.html
Read-Copy Update was originally designed for DYNIX/ptx, a UNIX operating system from Sequent Computer Systems Inc., now a part of IBM.
The link you provide is part of the sourceforge project called Linux Scalability Effort. It also includes NUMA and other SMP related code. And it looks like much of this started right around the 2.4 kernel release.
Look at the page and try to realize SCO is claiming this code infringes on their Unix copyrights!
Have just read the SCO 10k SEC filing of today (06/13/03) and they basically say IBM is right:
The Companyâ(TM)s SCOsource licensing revenue to date has been generated from license agreements that are non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, paid up licenses to utilize the Companyâ(TM)s UNIX source code, including the right to sublicense.
How do they intend to revoke IBMs UNIX license if they say in their own 10k filing that so far only perpetual deals have been made?
--
Andre
He isn't insulting "everyone", he's insulting the group of people that wish to drown out any decent discussion of the issues by cut-n-pasting lame counter-FUD. And there's far too many of them to address individually.
Lots of people here don't understand the concept of FUD. Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt. By increasing noise level by flooding comments like "main() { i++ } LOL! SCO suX0rs!! Let's DDoS them!", one is only increasing the amount uncertinty and doubt surrounding this case. From a few meters away you see a bunch of very scared people who are seemingly in deep denial. That doesn't help Linux.
Petty? Abso-frigging-lutely. Immoral? Highly subjective. It's not immoral for you, so you don't do it. It might not at be immoral at all for me, so I might do it if I had a lot more free time...oh, and no chance of getting laid for the next decade. ;)
As it is, I'll leave it for those of my geek brethren with more time (and angst) to kill.
Hey, I bet you meant petty as a pejorative. To me, petty usually means "fun."
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Did Microsoft or the RIAA/MPAA pay you to say that? Linux is a genuinely powerful OS that could truly change computing. Obviously you've spent more time talking to lawyers and less time talking to your programmers and techs.
My suspicisions of what SCO's true motive is has peaked after reading all the articles mentioned in today's entry in the saga. Is SCO trying to save itself? Is SCO trying to destroy Linux? Is SCO trying to hurt IBM? The Yankee Group's (long time Microsoft friend) high-level involvement in the matter is also suspicious when you factor in Microsoft re-upping licenses of Unix code from SCO. So what exactly ARE you doing SCO?
The fact that SCO is teeter-tottering with its answers to evidence of where the code originated from EXACTLY, is also suspicious. There are a lot of people that could have access to the source of Unix in the past before SCO had rights to it that might have implemented it in to Linux. The fact they haven't released the when, where and how of their claims is very interesting.
Linux can have the code worked out of it. My concern isn't for Linux at this point, Linus and the gang work magic with every kernel release. My concern is for the GPL. Will it be bolstered or destroyed because of this case?
I own a Linux/Open Source systems design firm in St. Louis (which I won't name so no one can mod me down for mooching adverts). In honor of SCO & Microsoft and their efforts towards getting Linux and Open Source (at least in name) engrained into the minds of virtually everyone involved in a business that uses technology (as in all of them) I am starting radio advertising (something new to us) next week. I will run ads that piggy-back off of all the talk about Linux and OSS lately, sort of a "Heard a lot of talk about Linux and Open Source lately? Blah blah blah explain blah blah XYZ server blah blah free blah blah stable blah blah call blah .com" Talk about leveraging your advertising dollar. So if you're in St. Louis and you hear the ads, well, turn it up!
For those of you who think this has unduely tainted Linux and or OSS, I disagree completely. For the most part, people listen/read/etc. only peripherally and hear buzz-words while missing a great deal of content (listen to any radio ads lately?). Just my opinion, but we'll soon see if I'm right.
As it stands now, we're getting about 2 new OSS/Linux based projects per week. These are just a server and a PC, but rather full blown office systems. People have started to pay attention to things like bottom line, performance, long-range costs, REAL R.O.I., etc.
Later, got lots of work to do.
ER
Funny, I wasn't aware "chuckle" was a synonym for "retch."
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
IF the offending code is actually from the Unix System V kernel dated in early 1980s (predating the first Linux kernel), and it is not from BSD, and if it is primarily in Linux kernel 2.4/2.5 and it wasn't put there by SCO/Caldera employees THEN what are the legal consequences for this lawsuit?
/ 13/10552207 51243.html
I strongly prefer that SCO lose this case but in light of what I'm hearing now, I can't help but wonder if they have a stronger case than we all imagined earlier. Just because we wish something to be true doesn't mean it has to be true.
Here are some quotes from the interview with Laura Didio of Yankee Group regarding this:
1. 'There are "bits and pieces" of copied material in Linux version 2.2, according to SCO. However, the vast majority of their claims centre around the later Linux 2.4 and 2.5 versions.'
2. 'The Yankee Group as well as the other analyst firms and members of the press, were only shown small portions of a few pieces of code. In my case, I saw Unix System V, version 4.1. Incidentally, this particular code is from the early 1980s, and hence predates Linus Torvalds' first Linux code.'
3. 'SCO hired three separate teams of code experts, including a group from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. According to SCO, these groups all found code in Linux that purportedly originated in the Unix System V kernel and not BSD.'
I wanted to keep this post relatively short so I suggest you read the entire interview to get better context to the quotes and to get the full story.
Source:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06
If the source isn't the same bit for bit, you must acquit.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
--Sun Tzu
Like most childish unethical things, it's also pointless and transparent. In the end, you can only dishonor yourself. No liability will be demonstrated, only Microsoft's criminal nature. Such demonstrations have and will continue to hurt Microsoft's sales.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
-- this is a very nice operating environment for our porpoises.
First of all, best typo ever.
Second: Scott? Scott McNealy, is that you?
Third (in relation to the typo).
They call him FLIPPER, FLIPPER....faster than lightning humm-hum-hum-hum-hummm.
Ok, I'm done...time to go out to the greens and do some dolph...golfin'.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
1. If SCO fail on Monday (whether to push anything through) or fail at their aim I would start looking at legal proceedings against SCO. Basically, is there anything that can enable the fed's to seal off the SCO offices and search for evidence of foul deeds.
2. Didi or whatever her name is: Dunno, but she has stated a position and if she is proved very wrong she and her company could be held liable.
3. The fallout of this case could very well be a lot more interesting...
4. I am going to predict that Germany (and India) will start to take the lead technonogically if not already, whilst the US sue's innovation into the ground.
And I can't figure out still how they expect to prove that any of this has anything to do with IBM. What, so IBM now is reduced to poring over stacks of 1980's code to insert into the kernel? What the hell.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Even the developpers of the IBM journalled filesytem (JFS) don't have access at all to the AIX version of the same filesystem. So, I think SCO is just shooting itself in the foot.
In fact, they just try to delay customers' acceptance of Linux and try to find someone to pay for there lack of business intelligence.
Achille Talon
Hop!
IBM own Sequent who designed Dynix. They have plenty enough experience with NUMA from this alone not to have required SCO help in adding NUMA to Linux... (if indeed it was them that submitted the NUMA related patches to the Linux source tree)
Tim Brown
I bet they are monitoring the downloads for IP addresses. Then they serve the service providers with subpoenas for the identity of whoever is using that address. Then they sue everyone. Has SCO joined the RIAA? If so, then maybe their on-line distribtions have been poisoned. Seriously, the latest news is that they are getting ready to file suit against a major hardware firm for contract violations. And they are claiming that EVERY version of Linux contains their code. See http://www.businessweek.com/technology/cnet/storie s/1017267.htm
SCO's stock has double in value since their Law Suit rampage.
SCO showed code to a German guy. But he didn't sign the NDA. The guy claims that SCO removed al date info from code. Code is 'similar' but not 'identical'. Some comment (and jokes) are the same. Only about 80 lines of Linux scheduler 'identical'
Google translation here
From scottlockwood@hotmail.com Fri Mar 29 15:54:18 2002
Return-Path: scottlockwood@hotmail.com
X-Originating-IP: [63.74.34.71]
From: "William Scott Lockwood III"
To: jeremy@satanosphere.com, cyborg_mmonkey@yahoo.com, flikee@xmission.com, hurstdog@kuro5hin.org, inoshiro@kuro5hin.org, rusty@kuro5hin.org, trlockwood@yahoo.com
Cc: benevolent_spork@yahoo.com, kdogg731@hotmail.com, elby@adequacy.org, jwipotroll@hotmail.com, j0nkatz@hotmail.com, spiralx@spazmail.com, sarah@johncglass.com, quacky@rocketmail.com, BlueBear@meowmail.com, momocrome@momocrome.cjb.net, pen1s_goat_guy@hotmail.com, tjfriese@shaw.ca, revlucion@journalist.com, adamtrowe@hotmail.com, sarah@aphasianetworks.com, drhelpful@portalofevil.com, spacefem@starmail.com, sporkopolis2001@yahoo.com, hanales@hotmail.com, trollaxor@mac.com
Subject: Retiring the scoopizoid site.
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:54:18 -0600
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: F1629Qs96i1QwCfWaL40001112f@hotmail.com
I'm going to retire scoop.giz. People are right about the geekizoid name forever being associated with crap.
We will go back up with a new domain name at some point in the future when I find something I like. Any suggestions on a name?
Scott
Message to IBM's Board of directors:
"You have until Monday to buy SCO, this is your last chance, after Monday, it'll not worth a penny"
SCeO
Maybe I'm just bitter because when I posted it it got modded -1 offtopic..
I'll stop whinning because Dukes are funny as hell...
SCO is threatening to sue yet another company...
Chris Sontag says "It would be almost impossible to separate it [SCO code in Linux] out." - so I guess he wants everybody to pay SCO royalties.
Details at http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1017267.html
Read rest of the artical here: http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-19-Inju
And least there is a place where unfair competition acts are based on common sense.
... And SCO will soon have no business.
God, I crack me up. Which is good, since I don't crack anyone else up.
This could be crucial. Please, a better translation from a bilingual. If this says what I think it does it could be quite important, but I don't trust my interpretation of an automatic translation so much...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
With the latest threats of expanding the case against Linux is SCO trying to head down the 'Look and Feel' route. Will they assert ownership of the commands and text screen next?
Most of the replies so far have been making fun of this guy's porpoises type.
He brings up a valid point people, this FUD campaing is having effects. In my company, many of our customers were worried about this issue. Not to mention, that many use AIX and don't even know about the AIX license stuff.
Sure, the odds are against SCO, but we live in a world were management has no tolerance for these type of risks. If IBM does not defend the "community" well, you'll see more adverse effects from this lawsuit.
Somebody said "so what" in a reply. So what? SCO is scaring people away from Linux!
- sigs are for wimps.
I just had to say it. My apologies.
I just downloaded the Linux kernel from them. Now, I will proceed to carry out my GPL rights. --The anonymous coward who posted the first incarnation of the bandwidth-wasting message
Ah, crap! I blew my load in the subject line and have nothing left to say.
Look at the SCO website, and read the graphic in the middle of the page -- "Relax/Worry Free Software." How very telling (or at least amusing).
Fuck it
SCO announcement - 12:01 am - June 14, 2003.
All your AIX license are belong to us!
The scenario he paints is logical enough, however. SCO certainly seems to be talking up Sun and Solaris through all of this. It may just be another pin to prick IBM with on their part. I worry that the uncertainty over this BS will go on long enough to really deal Linux a blow in the corporate IT marketplace. Some on the Linux side might see that as a Good Thing. Although the Open Source/Free Software approach isn't antithetical to commerce, as we've all learned over the last five or six years, there are areas where the two coexist uncomfortably, at best.
Bottom line for me personally: I'd love to keep making my career thrive on Linux. I'm fine with Solaris too, but it's not as much fun, somehow.
This mean that the Penalty can be nearly open-ended or as big as $1B. It's a high hurtle to claim for SCO but it is possible in the abstract.
Help fight continental drift.
Rumblings are that the largest piece of SCO's claim is within the scheduler. I'm sure these people can refute most or all claims put forward by SCO.
SCO is now trading at $11 before all of this it was 80c. They are telling IBM to fix things wihtout saying what they want fixed. If they were a kid I would give them a slap round the ear and tell them to grow up. But they are a multi national who could f**k up Linux and the whole OSS comunity. Surely IBM could tell them to shut the f**k up. or at least come straight with their clames. Rather than the current 'we could tell you but then we would have to kill you' attatude they have to the evedence. If SCO wanted it fixed they could tell us what the offending code was and we could fix it. They are just trying to make a quick dirty buck and they don't care about what happens to do it. Welcome to the ugly face of capatilism. (I am pissed as I write this so apologies for typos and gibberish)
Today I had the opportunity to have a look at the relevant code-sections. By a mistake on the part of the representing law office my colleague and I, in contrast to the 7 other people who received insight today, did not have to sign a NDA. Contrary to the examiners of Microsoft, who must keep silence obviously even with their own superiors, and are only allowed to report to their internal audit department.
Now, to the code:
Under notarial supervision 46 pages, each with half code from Linux (to a large extent printed posts directly from the Linux Kernel mailing list) were shown and the other half with listings from SCO. Whether it is actually SysV source is not possible to determine, since they are taken out of context. Also it is interesting to note that all dates were removed from both, even from the comments.
The comments are actually identical in parts, even some jokes are the same on both sides. Remarkable is however, that the code before the comments of the most matching parts is quite different. The fundamental structure of the relevant functions is similar, the concrete implementation however quite different. Variable names and functions names are different, loops are structured differently, conditions are implemented through chains of conditions or bit-patterns. In the end only one thing can be said with confidence: The functionality made available by the respective code sections is often alike, which was to be expected. In the concrete implementation however, there are so many differences that a proof of the same origin will be difficult, although not impossible.
The crucial point however is a function of the scheduler, which is about 60 lines, which is actually identical apart from small differences. There are also many matching comments. Comparable similarity exhibits only one routine of the memory management, however here only in the Linux version there are comments at all. Whether with this two matching sections a judicious proof can be provided, only a lawyer can tell. The vague similarities of other parts are insufficient in my opinion, since both were written based on the same standards so certain similiarites are to be expected.
In regard to the identical comments however, I'm unable to find an explanation. That would have to be examined again more closely in any case, in particular with included dates. Because only with them a breach of copyright could actually be proven. In regard to the discussions about the parts of Linux distributed by SCO/Caldera under the GPL, it has to be said that no court ever actually confirmed the validity of the GPL.
If it is found to be valid however, SCO can only use the parts of Linux it didn't publish and wasn't involved in developing. This is another difficulty I see in the coming trial.
But since the original, unpatched Linux source hasn't been attacked, but only modifications included in different distributions, it has to be determined if they possibly own the rights to the said parts, either direct or indirect e.g. by buyouts or "all-inclusive-deals". Chances for an actual trial aren't very good, since most of comparable cases settled out of court.
This is however only my personally view, relevant in the end is only the decision of of the representing lawyers of both sides and/or eventually the responsible court.
Is SCO's board Chaired by Dr. Evil?
"We pretend they stole the code, and ask for ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS?"
No. 2 "I could have been on Forbes, but you, like an IDIOT, wanted to sue IBM"
Because I find it endlessly amusing, I will now shamelessly steal from SA:
"We're confident that DNF will be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, game of 1998. And this confidence is not misplaced." - Scott Miller, 1997
"Duke Nukem Forever is a 1999 game and we think that timeframe matches very well with what we have planned for the game." - George Broussard, 1998
"Trust us, Duke Nukem Forever will rock when it comes out next year." - Joe Siegler, 1999
"When it's done in 2001." - 2000 Christmas card
"DNF will come out before Unreal 2." - George Broussard, 2001
"If DNF is not out in 2001, something's very wrong." - George Broussard, 2001
"DNF will come out before Doom 3." - George Broussard, 2002
DUUUUUUUUUDE!!! You need to inform some attorneys on the IBM/Linux side about that, but keep it quite so SCO won't remove it before trial.
And what would be the alleged crime?
In my experience, the default, official utilities such as tar that come with brand-name unices such as SCO, solaris, Irix etc, are totally feeble compared with their gnu counterparts.
Has anyone a counterexample where the 'official' version of something is actually superior to the Gnu version?
Thanks!
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
ralities insert e
take business a corporation. insert from
So that's what the preview button is for.
--qtp
Read, L
http://sco.com/images/execs/dmcbride_reg.jpg
Ya, there is face an investor could trust. Right after work he heads on down to the local bar to hit on the chicks.
Darl "Ya babe I'm a single CEO and I've got a solid business plan. Iâ(TM)m working on a billion dollar deal thatâ(TM)s about to go down."
I suppose you could equate the investors he is targeting with the average bar chick.
Chick "Darl I know your mister right, youâ(TM)re not like the other CEO's who just want get down my pants and have their way with me."
And amazingly enough, it works.
That article sounds like SCO pulled off kernel mailing list submissions and is showing those (with all dates and submitter names removed) side-by-side with outtakes (supposedly) from UnixWare.
?????
THEY'RE NOT showing IDENTICAL CODE IN THE KERNEL but MAILING LIST SUBMISSIONS!!!!!!!!!
Furthermore, wasn't it Caldera (now SCO) that originally brought the Microsoft antitrust case to court? Knowing very little about the details of that case, and how such things work, I ask: what are the implications of Microsoft buying the ones who brought the case to court? Though nothing substantial has come of the antitrust case, it's still a thorn in Microsoft's ass. If they could somehow reduce the weight of the antitrust case...
-shrug-
I just wonder - how many of the linux projects will not be portable with almost no efforts to FreeBSD with almost no effort, if worse comes to worse?
Ok, its been said many times up to now, but. What if the code came from SCO themselves, no, hang on, *the original SCO* (not Caldera SCO).
Heres a link to an article written in May 2000, by the old SCO company and in it they say ...
SCO is expected to announce 32- and 64-bit versions of Linux for Intel-based servers, which will be available in the fourth quarter of this year. In early 2001, SCO plans to deliver a 32-bit Internet Infrastructure Edition that will come bundled with a Web server and other IP applications. The company is also working on a 64-bit edition for service providers, including ISPs and application service providers, which will feature special billing and management tools.
The company is also expected to explore the following areas:
* Building the Linux clustering capacity to be in line with SCO's NonStop Clusters technology, which scales to 12 or more boxes with advanced reliability for data and applications. Current Linux clustering technology is generally limited to two or four nodes.
* Beefing up Linux's symmetric multiprocessing capabilities. Currently the number of CPUs per Linux server is usually limited to eight; UnixWare can run on servers with up to 32 CPUs.
* Managing multiple Linux servers as well as applications from a single console as if they were a single system.
* Improving security and the ability of Linux to handle applications such as e-mail, including instant messaging.
* Adding online support services and documentation.
Crucial to the company's success will be ensuring that it rapidly offers adequate device drivers and APIs to let independent software vendors port existing SCO Unix applications to SCO's Linux, says David Boyes of Dimension Enterprise, a data center design and testing firm in Herndon, Va. His company runs a variety of Linux applications, mostly using TurboLinux.
Hmmm... What are Calderas claims again? Check that name :).
Ok, if SCO were hacking Linux at this point why didn't they raise the flag then? They were working on Linux, they had both sets of sources, Calderas claim is that the code is from the Early 80's and relates to NUMA? I doubt it, Ok, x86 SMP, err I doubt that too, What does that leave on a (x86) processor from the early 80's? This time period was right in the middle of 2.4 development.
And lastly back to an old quote ...
MozillaQuest Magazine: When Darl said "substantial System V code showing up in Linux", did he mean the Linux kernel, the GNU/Linux operating system, a Linux distribution(s), or Linux applications? If it is in the kernel, which kernel version(s)?
Chris Sontag: We're not talking about the Linux kernel that Linus and others have helped develop. We're talking about what's on the periphery of the Linux kernel. (Emphasis added.)
Talk about Bullshit.
Just in case anyone isn't clear on why short-selling is bad if you don't have a lot of experience: there's no limit on how much money you can lose. With normal stock investment, if you invest, say, $1000 in stock, the worst you can do is lose $1000 (if the stock become worthless). You basically choose beforehand the upper bound on your potential losses.
With short-selling, on the other hand, there is no potential upper bound. If you short-sell SCO, it could go up to $100/share, it could go up to $1000/share, it could go up to $2.3m/share. While some of these prices are more likely than others, the point is that you can lose many times your initial investment.
This also makes it harder to make a profit. For you to make money, the stock can go down only by $x, where $x is its current price, but for you to lose money, the stock can go up by any amount. So the balance is tilted away from you.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Today I had the opportunity to look at the [incriminating?] code snippets.
Through a mistake of the representing Law firm, my colleague and I did not have to sign an NDA, unlike the other 7 representatives that also were viewing the code today. This is in stark contrast to the Microsoft representatives who apparently even had to maintain silence with their own supervisors, and were only allowed to report back to their internal [Legal?] department.
Now to the code itself:
46 pages each containing one half Linux code (largely printed posts out of the linux-kernel lists) and one half listings from SCO were presented under legal supervision. It is therefore not possible to tell whether this actually comes from SysV-Sources, as they are taken out of context. Also interisting is that all dates are taken out of both parts, even out of the comments.
The comments are in fact identical in places. Even some of the jokes are the same on both sides. What is apparent, though, is that in the most similar places the preceding source code is quite different. The basic structure of the affected functions are similar, but the concrete implementation is quite different. Variables and function names are different, loops are structured differently, conditions run on chained conditionals or bitmaps. All in all only one thing is sure: the functions presented in the code-snippets were often the same, which was to be expected, though.
In the concrete implementation there are so many differences, however, that a proof of the same origin will be hard to construct, albeit not impossible.
However one function of the scheduler presents a [breaking point?], as except for minor differences it is identical. In this case there are also a whole row of matching comments.
Only one routine of the Memory Management offers comparable similarity. In this case, however, only the linux version has comments.
Only a lawyer could safely judge whether these two similarities alone provide proof enough for a verdict. The vague similarties in other parts are, in my opinion, insufficient, since a certain similarity is to be expected as both pieces are based on the same standards. On the other hand, I have no clue where the identical comments in different code could come from. In any case, this should be researched more closely, especially with the dates restored. Only with these would a copyright infringement be provable.
As to the discussion of the piece of Linux sold by SCO/Caldera itself under the GPL, one has to take into account that no Court has commented on the enforcability of the GPL yet...
[Sorry ran out of time. I will try to get to the rest later. Perhaps someone else can translate the rest.]
That was a great troll, right up to the final three paragraphs that would tip off anyone who is not a clueless moron. I salute you.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Maybe I don't have all of the facts in place, but I don't think Didio has her head screwed in right, or missed class the day they taught contracts in law school.
A mutual mistake is where parties are mistaken about a basic assumption upon which they base their bargain. However, there is no right of avoidance where the parties are uncertain or consciously ignorant of a crucial fact. (see Wood v. Boynton)
The thing that SCO misunderstood is the fact that the kernel they distributed did not contain any of their proprietary code, and it could be considered substantially different that what they thought they were distributing. However, unlike the cow example, SCO did have a way to discover this, (they had the code right in front of them!) and were consciously ignorant of it. They definitely had the ability and the resources to do a comprehensive examination of the code before they released it, and they intentionally chose not to do so. A court is unlikely to have sympathy in this situation. With the cow, however, there really was no reasonable way to find out that it was pregnant, especially considering the veterinary medicine technology of when the case was argued in 1887.
If SCO thinks they can use this argument to win, they will be laughed out of court since:
1. The factual situation is more akin to the old lady who thought that she was selling a topaz when in fact she was selling an uncut diamond but did not do any further investigation and
2. Any first year law student will be able to tell you this.
--------
Standard I Am Not A Lawyer Disclaimer
McBride says he and his company have become targets of both physical and virtual aggression. A man allegedly called his office to challenge him to a fistfight, he says. When McBride's secretary called back to get time and place, and the guy said he was just kidding.
This McBride fellow has HUGE bulgy balls. He trash talks like pool hall operator. I love this guy!
who're they? They are those with significant holdings in the company, and I bet McBride has got a boat load of shares.
The stock has gone from worth zilch (0.6), to worth more than lots of tech companies out there (including Sun).
Have a look -> 1 year share price
Too much misinformation in the interview is hurting my head now. Just look at the very last line.. once code has been placed under GPL it cannot be altered! But alteration is what GPL is all about.. to take the code and change it.
/*TODO*/ or #include<kernel.h>
They only showed PART of the code, that she recognised as Sys V 4.1 vs linux kernel 2.4. It was from no region of the source.. just here and there. Could even be a line that goes
She also does not have experience with looking at sourcecode. She instead carried with her a tech guy. Where was he from? Who was paying him? whats his name? How much development experience does he have? Did he do a cmp or diff on the code blocks in question? Where is his interview?
Even IBMs customers I suppose are getting a gist of whats happening here. Only the most nervous and illinformed managers will be moved to Windows 2003. They will be deserving it.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
just nobody noticed.
The ______ Agenda
So ... if IBM bought Sun right about now, they'd get Solaris, Java, and an ironclad Unix license; and SCO would get exactly what they deserve: no award or settlement, no buyout, just lawsuits galore from their own former stockholders. Schw0ot!
(Probably won't happen, real life's never that cool...)
Here you will find the pdf of the Linux Kernel Internals, authored by Tigran Aivazian (tigran@veritas.com). Now, he has been submitting patches to the kernel for a long time.
He submitted patches for (among others)
Microcode updates
...)
iBCS patches
kgdb patches
Linux Implementation of SCO UnixWare BFS
and I'm sure a lot more, across a wide range of kernel versions (2.2/2.3/2.4
Why does this matter? Well his email used to be tigran@ocston.org. odd domain name, try reversing it.search and look at the first two results, then look here for more info about the first entry.
Before that his email was tigran@sco.org, but he
got a little paranoid
about it.
Searching google brings up patches supplied by him throughout the whole development cycle of 2.3/2.4 and more. He is directly connected to the author of the LKP on SCO Unix, draw your own conclusions here.
Hey, it was SCO's idea to call those 80 lines of code, "proof", not mine. Don't blame me if I don't think there's enough there to justify entering a discovery phase, much less a proof. All I've got to go on is some poor English major's opinion, because SCO is playing hocus-pocus with published code. They are the one's who have courted the public's opinion and they are the one's who need to back up their public assertions if they want the public reaction they desire. Nothing they have done fits into normal law practice and by the time the "discovery phase" is over they will be ready for a settlement
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Proprietary software (if SCO's stunt miraculously works): Even if your license is supposedly perpetual by contract with the vendor another company that had no business with you can come by and say that due to a dispute between them and said vendor your version is illegal. No need for a court ruling or to prove anything you assert (according to SCO). You cannot modify the software to make it legal (no code) and it is unlikely that the vendor will be willing to modify all the older versions still used by their clients so they don't need to upgrade it.
And, as others have pointed out here, toss in DRM and you don't even have the option of ignoring any of this (or perhaps even legal protections in non-US jurisdictions). The remote shut-off time-bomb in your software gets flipped on and you are SOL.
Have you any previous experience in reading code?
No. And I am not a copyright attorney either. However, for the purposes of authentication, I had a code developer present to review the materials with. No one has greater respect for their inherent limitations than I do!!!
I wonder if that was an SCO developer?
Quite frankly, I can't wait for SCO to pull IBM's AIX license. My last two employers both used Appgen accounting software (runs on AIX), and neither have an IT department around to pull a switch of packages ASAP. Now, my last two employers didn't treat me very well. So, therefore, when SCO gives me the green light, I call up the BSA, who are stupid enough to fall for something like this. And in case they don't bust them for the AIX programs, there's always the twenty thousand or so bucks worth of pirated software I left on systems when I departed.
Thank you, SCO, for the ability to provide revenge from an unexpected quarter.
If using Linux is about choice, how come people complain when I choose to use Windows?
Laura Dildo?
Oh well, what the hell...
[for investors and speculators only]
As the story about SCO suing IBM is unfolding, SCOX stock went from $1 in Feb this year to $4 in May, then to $8.5 in the end of May, then to $12 today. Some people were already selling short that stock at $8.5, but SCOX, after what happened today, has a good chance to go even higher following a pullback to $9.8. How much higher?, $13-14 is the next high in two-three weeks from now. If you want to ignore this information you can, but I'm going to make some moeny instead.
[the next update will follow in a month]
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
"No one ever got fired by going with IBM"
This SCO crap is all about FUD. IBM invented FUD.
I haven't seen IBM blink yet.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
if these two Germans are not under the NDA they should just post the code. If it was lifted from BSD, the original author should be able to identify their own work.
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
The poster is a penis and is not of an intelect which can see the logic of your fine rebuttal.
Therefore give him some Slack(ware)
That would indicate you have working MFM and RLL drives! Poor bastard. here is what you do. Remove them and drop them from about waist hight. That should clear up your problem nicely.
Now you can toss that ISA disk controler out as well.
God damn Americans, stop thinking of everything in terms of "war" and "kicking ass for what's right". You are acting like 19th century Britain.
I have already provided my email address to SCO
so they can contact me to start litigation against me. That
the whole point point. I hope the sue me, and
all of us.
Please, answer these questions:
- WHO has seen both the SCO sourcecode and the linux code?
- WHO has seen the contracts IBM signed with SCO?
- WHO has seen the patents SCO has related to Unix?
- WHO has read and understood the complete class action suit text filed by SCO?
If you've answered on all questions "I have", please step forward and enlighten us with your vision on the matter. If you HAVEN'T answered on all questions "I have", please, stop hammering texts and start thinking about a similar case when a given company X is suspect of a GPL-violation.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
shut up. you know nothing of spicy food. your stupid puns arent funny either. why the FUCK do you persist. you are useless. fat, sexless live with mommie fucking loser piece of crap supressed homo fucker. shut up.
Downloading allegedly infringing code from the allegedly infringed upon copyright holder that the allegedly infringed upon copyright holder has made publicly available for that very purpose. Umm... okay, they won't say what has been done then just that it infinges upon their IP and has to stop.
God damn Americans, stop thinking of everything in terms of "war" and "kicking ass for what's right". You are acting like 19th century Britain.
Acting as if it's the wealthiest most powerful country in the world?
this crap is paying out...
Please mod parent down for not knowing what "discovery" is in the context of the legal system.
Sounds like one of your pointless rants.
There are only few (3-4) functions in the Linux 2.4.20 Scheduler matching that number.
One interesting point.. He said something about 60 lines of code and SCO said about 80 lines. There is one functions with about 60 line and the same function may have about 80 lines if we count empty lines inside it.
Now... I do not think there are more than 10 versions for this scheduler since Linux 1.0....
I think we can check against available UNIX versions such as old ones released by SCO and the BSD's.
I have a script in place to do a faster check. Can anyone post schedulers from those old versions. Maybe there is a match but they both came from old ones...
Luckily, pointing out spelling mistakes is never redundant.
This would be totally inconsistent with countries who have passed laws basicly saying that the end user when buying [music] media owns the rights the the physical media, and not the content.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
The fact is,
The fact is SCO keeps changing the argument.
At first, it was that IBM stole code from SCO, but the stolen code was not in the main kernel. Then it was in the main kernel. Then they were going to sue Linus for patent infringement. Then they weren't. Then they asked for copyrights that they apparently already own.
According to the complaint vs. IBM (the only thing we REALLY have to go on), SCO doesn't believe that Linux could have advanced as quickly as it did without swiping code. What kind of judge will allow that argument?
How do the kernel-maintainers ensure that the code/patch submitted to them was not ripped off from some licenced/IPR-protected code?
At a more general level isn't it possible that two people come up with the same kind of solution(read code) given that both of them have access to the same tools and are trying to attack the same problem?
That Hurts!! Name change? Naa..
There is unix code that is open source, yet copyrighted. Some of that code may have ended up in Linux. It may be found with software used by colleges to find plagiat in papers. If copied code is found, the other contributions by that author can be checked.
If there is a lot of contamination, there is a problem.
Start here, and work your way down.
Would it be possible to have a government entity look at the code to determine fraud?
Could the readers here at slashdot stop the meteoric rise of SCO stock?
Go to The SEC complaints site
Fill out a complaint for False or misleading statements about a company complaint, a price fixing complaint, or a fraud in the marketing of securities complaint.
If enough complaints happen at once, coupled with the strange stock price activity of late. The SEC might start an investigation. Maybe the SEC can look at the code and determine whether or not they are lying just to make their stock skyrocket.
I have tried to find that kind of software but... nothing.... Did you used that software before ? Can you give me an idea how to get it ?
>>>>to show where they came from (i.e. IBM).
We're in complete agreement
AND
One of the "analysts" that looked at the NDA and asked several times "can you prove this came from IBM", the guy showing him the code said no.
And 8 hours later Stowell (SCO Minister of disinformation) phoned the analyst and said the code presenter 'mis-spoke'.
If IBM submitted code to the Linux kernel and it got in, show the end-code AND the emails.
It's looking to me like someone (old-SCO employees? Caldera-SCO employees? new-SCO employees? ) submitted code, and the submitted code was ripped to pieces then merged into the kernel.
So there's no copyright claim against Linux, there's no claim against IBM.
This is definitely a Pump-and Dump, and this is actually good for jail time.
When this gets blown to hell by IBM's lawyers, and the SEC gets involved, those profits point the way to a RICO-act prosecution, and jail time all around.
Unfortunately, anyone on the bandwagon for this ride could end up with their assets siezed, and a large roommate named 'Bubba' with a penchant for forcible sodemy.
Way to go, guys. Prison stripes all around.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
For any copyrighted work, nobody but those explicitly authorized by the copyright holder(s) have permission to redistribute the copyrighted work. In the case of the GPL, authorization is explicitly granted by the copyright holders to redistribute to anyone who will not bar the authorization from anyone the work is distributed to. The GPL doesn't supercede the copyright, it just outlines what conditions are necessary and sufficient to obtain permission from the real copyright holder(s) to redistribute the work. Since the terms and conditions that the GPL makes are not illegal, the clause itself is therefore legal.
Remember though... copyright can only protect content, not ideas. You can read GPL'd code, be inspired by it, and write your own version of it without being subject to the GPL, as long as you did not actually copy any of the actual GPL'd code. This is something that Microsoft really needs to realize, with all their ranting about how the GPL is counter productive to commercial software development. I'm pretty sure RMS would hate this loophole in the GPL, but there's squat all he or anyone else can do about it. You can't copyright a design.
Of course, if you develop a program that's the same as a GPL'd work, you may need to be able to prove that you didn't just copy the code. Clean room development is by far the easiest way to prove this, but it's not required if a person is willing to take the time to actually really *understand* the code.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
At this point, the only option the Linux community would have would be to roll back every change made to Linux since 2.2 (the earliest version they say contains their IP), and start over. Hopefully, SCO's code wouldn't make it back in the next time.
I'm not sure whether or not I think this outcome is particularly plausible, mostly because I think SCO is mistaken about the true source of the copied code.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
from
e .j html?articleID=10300886
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticl
"The Linux business model was bound to change, and some people are having a hard time accepting this, he says. "The whole concept of getting something for nothing just doesn't hold up," he [McBride] says. "The notion that you're going to run a Fortune 1,000 company on something that in the end could be more like Napster than an enterprise software system, it's a big question mark."
Pretty backward when you think about it. Seems that at best the SCO case is about how a company can use our currently twisted legal system and a mistake to cause damage to one of the most productive software creation processes we have.
Furthermore, McBride's comparison might hold up if the Napster net had distributed one copyrighted work for every million public domain ones, but then who would have objected to Napster?
How the hell is this insightful? If anything it's only mildly funny, as a spoof of the newspaper headline from the movie "Johnny Dangerously".
I don't know how to consider your post; is it simply a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word license or are you trolling me? You make good points so probably not trolling. Anyway here is my response:
The GPL IS a license.
The first and obvious clue would be that it is called the General Public LICENSE.
The second clue is that the text of the GPL refers to the GPL itself by using the formulation "this license" (around 28 times in all).
More seriously:
"The GPL is not a license, it is just a clause that explicitly outlines the conditions of copyright."
No, laws concerning copyright is what explicitely outlines the conditions of copyright. The GPL is a license that explicitely outlines how to obtain additional rights not available with plain copyright for a work that has been licensed under it. Note that if your use of the material does not need these additional rights then the GPL need not apply to you.
"The GPL doesn't supercede the copyright, it just outlines what conditions are necessary and sufficient to obtain permission from the real copyright holder(s) to redistribute the work."
Sounds like a license to me. EULAs are also considered licenses and yet they are the one that put so much restricting clauses that you can hardly say that they don't try to supercede copyright.
"You can read GPL'd code, be inspired by it, and write your own version of it without being subject to the GPL, as long as you did not actually copy any of the actual GPL'd code. [...] I'm pretty sure RMS would hate this loophole in the GPL"
Hmm, I'm pretty sure he does not consider it a loophole. The way
you describe it is having a copyrighted algorithm be the same as a patented algorithm (the code protects the idea, not the implementation) and given RMS's anti software patent position he would most certainly NOT agree about a copyright system that would automatically grant a patent on the code without even the laughable attempt that the patent office pretend to be doing to prevent obvious stuff and invention with prior art to be patented.
To conclude dictionary.com gives this definition of license (among others, I simply took the one I thought applied most to our case, feel free to find one supporting your case that hte GPL is not a license but I couldn't find one myself):
"Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing."
The GPL is an official permission to do what is specified in it that is not doable with only copyright laws (i.e. redistribution).
I don't intend to continue this conversation any further, if this doesn't seem to convince you that the GPL is indeed a license the neither you are trolling me (get a life then, or try trolling somebody more important than me) or thatyou really believe it not to be one and won't change your opinion so me persisting to try to would be pointless.
Bye, HAND.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
The comments are in fact identical in places. Even some of the jokes are the same on both sides.
Should it not be possible to locate the individual who wrote these jokes and comments, and subpoena them to testify? This must surely be a way to put to rest the true origin of such code.
What I find most disturbing about Laura Didio's response was that: she is not a coder, and she isn't even familiar with the field. Her vacuous commentary shows what it is to be an outsider looking in, true. However, the excess use of exclamation points and wishy-washy commentary seems that she doesn't know and doesn't seem to want to know (her comment about "extreme limitations" on code reviewers leaves a bad taste in my mouth).
If this is how legal review will go, we're all screwed in the OSS camp. I think that ESR's paper cut to the chase, tore open their claims with factual references, and has yet to be addressed by anyone. That paper, in and of itself, is probably going to be used as the corpus of the legal defense... and it scares me that these "reviewers" have yet to read it or address it in any of their commentaries.
Never attribute to Hanlon that which can be adequately attributed to Heinlein.