Slashdot Mirror
Settling SCOres
Israel Pattison writes "The Inquirer is reporting that someone in Germany is claiming to have viewed the SCO-alleged infringing Linux source code without having to sign a NDA. The person gives details about the code that was presented, but the translation-by-software is difficult to follow." The story also includes a link to a human translation; maybe some Slashdot reader can do better. Also in the news is a story about a kernel developer getting uppity with SCO, as well he might.
This link (with the german developer) has been posted as a Score:5 comment to every single SCO-related story in the past four or five days. I think it's reasonable to have frequent/daily SCO stories as new news on the subject comes out, but this link is really not worth posting as the impetus for a story all by itself as the second SCO story of the day. Especially when the earlier SCO story had some threads related to this link.
Just a thought.
- Terrified and anonymous
Incidents and accidents. Hints and allegations.
And yet we have NO NEW INFORMATION ABOUT ANYTHING PERTINENT.
I have been pwned because my
I can also view Linux source code without signing an NDA. It's open source, after all.
Hello.
lets sue a company that has 1.5 BILLION invested in Linux.....they will role over right away......
erm wait.....1.5 billion.....we are worth 200 million if we throw in the coffie pot...shit were dead.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
SCO just thought no slashdotters would be able to understand a German guy... but alas, they underestimated the power of the Babelfish
... and I think everyone is too. But, seeing as it's not going to go away that quickly, or at least until IBM puts their foot down ;), could we at least lighten up on the puns for the sake of our collective sanity?
And so we go, on with our lives
We know the truth, but prefer lies
Lies are simple, simple is bliss
Make your SCO jokes with these words.
(Posted with this formatting to avoid lameness filter)
abscond absconded absconding absconds alfresco ascot Bascom discomfort disconcert disconcerting disconcertingly disconnect disconnected disconnecting disconnection disconnects discontent discontented discontinuance discontinue discontinued discontinues discontinuities discontinuity discontinuous discord discordant discount discounted discounting discounts discourage discouraged discouragement discourages discouraging discourse discourses discover discovered discoverer discoverers discoveries discovering discovers discovery Driscoll episcopal Episcopalian Episcopalianize Episcopalianizes escort escorted escorting escorts fiasco fourscore Francesco Francisco fresco frescoes Gascony Genesco gyroscope gyroscopes Lipscomb macroscopic microscope microscopes microscopic microscopy misconception misconceptions misconduct misconstrue misconstrued misconstrues Moscone Moscow Muscovite Muscovy Nabisco oscilloscope oscilloscopes periscope Prescott scoff scoffed scoffer scoffing scoffs scold scolded scolding scolds scoop scooped scooping scoops scoot scope scoped scopes scoping scorch scorched scorcher scorches scorching score scoreboard scorecard scored scorer scorers scores scoring scorings scorn scorned scorner scornful scornfully scorning scorns scorpion scorpions scotch scoundrel scoundrels scour scoured scourge scouring scours scout scouted scouting scouts scow scowl scowled scowling scowls spectroscope spectroscopic spectroscopy stereoscopic stethoscope stroboscopic telescope telescoped telescopes telescoping threescore transcontinental underscore underscored underscores undiscovered viscount viscounts viscous Wisconsin
Anyway, you've got to love a publication that tells you, "Here's a machine translation (containing lines like "In the concrete implementation there are not however so many differences that a proof of the same origin will become difficult, although reliably not possibly.") and, oh, there's also a human translation, too."
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
>Wasting bandwidth can be a good way to take out
>your anger... and make them pay a few pennies in
>the process. Since bandwidth is so cheap, launching
>things like this won't really help. However, we can
>download the Linux kernel from SCO and then execute
>our GNU rights.
Your link was broken. Here's a real one.
Now, I haven't seen the code, but the way it's described sounds to me like SCO may have grafted comments from the Linux source onto the SysV code. Comments being as unique and "fingerprinty" as they can be, this might have seemed like a good plan for making the code look like it came from SysV. The litmus test may be the origin of the comments, especially the jokes. I know if someone ripped off my joke, I'd for SURE let people know. . .
You are not the customer.
Could someone who knows the fellow ask him to select a version of Linux and indicate the actual filenames/line numbers where the code is alleged to be "the same?" The question here is "where did the code actually come from." To answer that, its first necessary to know precisely the code at issue.
From there, I would imagine that Linus has extensive records on where particular kernel submissions came from. That leads to affidavits to the effect that the code was an original work, or its replacement with code which in fact is an original work. Either of which solves the problem.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
rjamestaylor already posted the link under a previous story, and wiedmann was kind enough to translate it. Not exactly new, but worthy of discussion I suppose.
Being a native German speaker as well, and just having read the article in German and then English, I think the translation was done fairly well, and I doubt there is need for a better one.
Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul
ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
in soviet russia, SCO settles YOU!
"The meek shall inherit the earth, the rest of us shall go to the stars." Isaac Asimov
Slashdot, now with hourly SCO updates.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Maybe this should be a slashdot poll:
SCO wrapup story titles should be:
- Puns
- Ambiguous and forgettable
- Unsuccessful and forgettable attempts to sumamrize all 19 links in four words
- Serial numbers
- Randomly and uniquiely generated for SCO stories on each pageoad based on a markov chain algorithm
- All titled "cowboyneal"
- still terrified still anonymousThe Trillian Project : Proof of SCO's actions
The Trillian Project : Proof of SCO's actions
(#36053 by NZheretic in response to Did SCO open Unix source code? (ZDNet).)
So, how did Linux become so capable of scaling beyond the heights of the
old UNIXs. More importantly, who helped put what where?
As with the marketing of cars and TVs, it is the vendor's high end
leading edge models which sells the standard models, from which most of
the sales and profit is made. For the enterprise server market today,
that high end is multi-headed 64bit SMP ( shared memory multiprocessor
) systems, never mind the fact that single 32bit processors provide more
than enough power to do most jobs. For all intensive purposes, it is the
ability of the core OS to scale on 64Bit SMP systems that defines
"enterprise scalability". Other enterprise feature are effectively just
addons, which in the case of Linux, have been freely contributed from
many vendors and developers.
Since version 2.0, Linux was more than just a 32bit x86 operating
system. With the insistence and assistance of John "Maddog" Hall, Linux
was already ported to the 64Bit Alpha processor, which delivered great
performance and stability. Just like the traditional AT&T UNIX source
base, the ownership of the Alpha chipset passed though many hands,
suffering the same fate of a thousand cutbacks. Even Alpha's "native"
OS, VMS, has been ported to Itanium by HP/Compaq.
Since 1997 Intel has been promoting the Itanium line as the inevitable
successor for every other server processor on the market. Despite the
early vaporware status, Intel has been very successful, at least in
terms of marketing. With the exception of it's mainframes systems, even
IBM ships Itanium systems that directly compete with their own Power
processors.
For what The SCO Group has to offer with SCO Unixware 7,the Itanium line
is the only 64Bit option. The problem for The SCO Group is that modern
Linux can compete so well in that same market, that the value of
Unixware is rapid deteriorating to a historical curiosity. I suspect
that The SCO Group ( at that time called Caldera ) executives were well
aware of this before they acquired the server part of Old SCO in August
2000, or they would have known, if they spoken to the right executives
and technical staff.
So how did Linux get scale on Itanium? The SCO Group would have you
believe it was all IBM's doing, which isn't as interesting as the real
story. The web of history weaves to encircle and entangle a much more
diverse group of conspirators, including many of The SCO Group, Caldera
and old SCO own former executives and other employees.
In October 1998, IBM, Old SCO and Sequent teamed up to
collectively develop parts of Unixware and AIX into scalable 64bit ready
ports for IBM's Power processors and Intel's AI64, or Itanium, under the
banner of Project Monterey. But by then, it was already too late.
In February 1998, well before even the first prototype IA-64 chips were
available, a skunkworks team at HP, with some assistance from Intel,
began the work toward porting Linux to IA-64. By October 1998,around the
same time that IBM, Old SCO and Sequent had finished negotiations, HP
had completed the build toolchain. By January 1999, the Linux kernel was
booting on an IA-64 processor simulator, months before the actual
Itanium processor was available. In March 1999, at Intel, Linux was
booting on the actual Intel Itanium processor. In April 1999, CERN
joined the projects for the port of the Gnu C library and VA Linux
Systems joined the project and rapidly improved the stability and
performance.
In May 1999, the Trillian Project is foundered and HP, VA Linux and
Intel collectively provided their source patches to the Linux kernel for
the Itanium port under the GPL license.
A bootable kernel alone however does not make an OS make. HP supplied
I'm pretty sure that Linus "wrote" this; this is kernel stuff, right?
someone in Germany is claiming to have viewed the SCO-alleged infringing Linux source code without having to sign a NDA
Give yourself a few days to read the whole kernel source code and have your ass sued by SCO for having read their source code without NDA.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
It's certainly funny about this kernel developer giving notice to SCO about copyright infringement, even if he doesn't take it any further. However, the Evil Empire could use even this statement and point out to corporations: "Using Linux in your company will get yourself mixed up in all sorts of nasty legal tangles". Most execs might well be afraid to OK Linux in their department or company. These people don't know about distro's and GPL licenses, but they do understand the word 'lawsuit' and they don't like it one bit.
We can only hope that IBM will stomp SCO into oblivion, and that this whole sordid mess will sink into quit oblivion afterwards.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
"It lacks farfegnugen"
Table-ized A.I.
But it still doesn't mention which part of the linux code is copied (either way). I would like to know... give me some function/variable names. Then we could at least estimate the date the code was submitted and incorporated. Furthermore we could know which functional parts of the linux kernel was copied.
Why the hell would someone write out saying they saw the code and never once mention a single file name or function name for that matter?
How difficult is it to say: function foo() in Linux is the same as bar() in SCO code? Duh! Give me a break.
This looks more and more like a bad soap opera.
Better luck next time.
The big issue seems to be a function of the scheduler which shares 60 similar lines of code and Polandâ(TM)s disrespect of the Reichâ(TM)s frontier.
or you could.... RTFA!
There is no god
No, shithead, wasting bandwidth is NOT a good way to take out your anger. It's a good way to demonstrate to the world that the LAST thing anybody wants to do is get involves with those Lunix terrorists and hippies.
If that's the impression you want to give, then go right ahead.
Yes, because we all know that Microsoft are responsible for all the Windows users out there who do abuse. Are Linux terrorists and hippies worse than Windows terrorists and hippies? I don't get it.
Clever signature text goes here.
My 2 cents is that SCOX stock price should be driven down to 2 cents.
If all Linux kernel copyright holders (or most) do what this German fellow did, but formed a class action (or several, in each country), SCOX stock price would drop like a stone. It would make SCO a more palatable acquisition target for IBM, but not at a price that makes this strategy threats of men with badges and guns enfocing the a worthy exit for stockholders. This would rid the world of SCO, but in a way that would not validate the sue-to-be-bought model, becuase being bought for pennies on the dollar is not maximizing shareholder value, and it would make a fool out of Mr. McBride, who's just a white-collar thug.
Re Germany:
Isn't there a way in which you can essentially hire some business-lawyer type person to pursue a company on your behalf in such matters? Don't know whether it has to be B2B or not. I understand these people are rather fiesty.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Why bother trying to prove that the code was acquired "legally" when they have not even shown publicly what the actual code is?
It's interesting to note how your life achieves meaning by flaming people on Slashdot. You are a lucky person to have found your calling so early in life.
or does anyone else think that /. is turning into an SCO soap opera. I for one hope they die soon.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
Unless SCO patented the methodology, then coding a replacement and having seen SCO's original code does not mean you can't make an equivalent original. SCO has to prove that the person didn't create an original. Also, people are not computers. They will not remember lines and lines of code with any precision, so the entire argument that they can't create a functional original is BS. If the SCO code was patented, all they need do is use a different methodology, unless it was something generic (generic "only solutions" or "common solutions" or "obvious solutions" are not patentable, as there's nothing unique about them).
Who cares if IBM is in violation of SCO's license? That has nothing to do with IBM contributing to FOSS.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Is it just me or is this starting to look like the nerd version of the O.J. trial?
(No lame glove references please.)
"GNU's not Unix....it's Linux" / Kami "kokamomi" Petersen
I am not a lawyer (get this out the way first), but my opinion of some highly relevant issues:
According to McBride's public statements, SCO view all the *nix variants as derivatives of their stuff. If anybody is interested enough to discuss this, but doesn't remember, I'll locate the news links and post them.
However as far as IBM is concerned: IBM are fully authorized in their contract to create derivatives of *nix - use any methods in the source - sublicense it as they choose - and what's more the contract says IBM own any derivative products that they create. The only proviso appears to be IBM should not copy code or whatever associated paperwork came with it (copying ideas and methods is explicitly allowed).
Furthermore, it actually explicitly says this on SCO's own web site, and as part of SCO's evidence. Go, for example, to top of page 2: http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
So now, I think, we have yet another problem with SCO's case (aside from GPL issue, ATT v BSD issue, whether code was copied from or to SCO, whether SCO have the copyrights, whether anything in *nix is a trade secret given it's history, BSD contamination in *nix history undermining any copyright claim to entire *nix source, etc): Namely IBM are allowed to do more or less whatever they like in and with derivative UNIX products, explicitly stated in the contracts with ATT (which SCO inherited).
Are Linux terrorists and hippies worse than Windows terrorists and hippies? I don't get it.
Microsoft co-owns a cable TV news channel. Linux.org doesn't. Microsoft reserves the right to misrepresent anything related to Linux on MSNBC so far as it doesn't cross the line of slander.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Does anyone know what to make of this? Does it bolster SCO's case? Those documents that the paralegal 'found' couldn't be forged, right?
-Code was 46 pairs of printouts, no dates associated.
-2 sections of code looked very similar
-The rest was mostly copied comments, including jokes that were copied.
-Observer found it curious that the source code near the copied comments was completely different.
We should all deal with this in a rational, civilized, and above all capitalist manner.
Short sell SCO's stock instead.
Can somebody say "troll"? (Probably some teenage Windozer having a good laugh.)
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
The slashdot post more or less asked for translations from readers: "... maybe some Slashdot reader can do better". As it turns out, we allready have at least one.
I don't speak German, but I do know C:
Some possible translations of the German programming terms
Kettenabfrage (chained conditions?) sounds like switch statements.
Bitmuster (bit patterns ?) sounds like bitmasks
I'm taking bets on how many times they can work SCO into the posting titles...
SCOing, SCOing, SCOne!!!
The author of this is should be "Dr. Stefan Hildemann" . But google knows no "Dr. Stefan Hildemann". Google also knows no "Dr. Hildemann" working at a software firm. -> Fake?
Here is what you will see in the release notes for 2.4.22:
Revised scheduler functions.
Revised memory management routine.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
Did I read in that English translation that all date and time info was removed from the code that was shown, and that the Linux code presented was taken from MAILING LIST POSTINGS? Assumng this isn't some hoax, I smell the very, very pungant odor of bullshit...
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
This guys posting translates into real german to: "Ich bin ein SchaumschlÃger." which translates into: "I am a boaster."
No function name, no line number, no nothing. Very gut. Gut done.
I really love it when someone mirrors the text, inserting their own little humor.
However, it seems reasonable to assume that cmdrtaco is a flagrant homosexual.
Of corse, that might be in the original, I don't know German
It's a troll.
Please read comments before you mod. Thanks.
Well, you haven't understood the intracacies of the SCO vs IBM/Linux case until you've read it in the original Klingon.
Is this the same scheduler that was shitcanned around 2.4.15 or so, or is it the new one?
Looks like novel chickened out
Here's the link
The fact that SCO presented this without dates or source control log entries strongly suggests that either they either are completely naive about how to establish that code was copied, or that they simply don't have a case and are just playing a huge bluff.
He was one of the most disliked people in the Linux community. Would not go as far as hated though...
Perhaps, he decided he wanted to come back, but with more respect? Thats easy, hire someone who could become much more hated than you, be CEO again, fire a few people and win some brownie points.
StarTux
PS This is in jest, in case you miss it...
http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?comments=26981
show you are smarties!
There's an English translation of the German report (disclaimed as not authoritative) here. (Hmm, aren't unauthorized translations derivative works? :-)
There have been several references to jokes in the alleged identical comments. Maybe the person who saw the code can remember one or two... If the code isn't SCO's, whoever wrote the jokes will probably remember doing it.
I found the second link (re: kernel developer getting uppity with SCO) to be much more interesting. He claims to be the author (or significant modifier) of code which SCO purports to be in violation. His remark in short is "The violation is yours, 'cause I wrote the code". In a challenge to SCO, he's threatening to sue SCO unless they remove the paticular code sections from their list of copyright violations.
This may be one of the ways to put chinks in SCOs armor. Get other Linux kernel developers to compare what they've written against corresponding sections of OpenLinux. Then note SCO's violations.
Generalissimo FranciSCO FrancSCO is still valiantly holding on in its fight to remain dying.
I now this is way OT but frankly I've had a gutsful of my chosen industry. We have M$ behaving like total jerks for over a decade, Oracle looking like a complete bunch of bully boy tossers and now SCO behaving in a manner that would surely see them heading directly to jail for extortion if they had Italien heritage.
Frankly OSS is the only point of sanity and some morality left to the industry (I can't quite believe that the IBM of the 70s and 80s is suddenly transposed itself to that touchstone).
Phew, its off my chest, quick, mod me down.
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
I'm curious.. how can they distribute GPL code under an NDA. Linux code is copyright the author, and the only right SCO has to redistribute it is under the GPL.
Even if they think it's their code, if they downloaded the Linux source to get their copy, they are bound by the GPL just like the rest of us.
I think. IANAL and such. Anyone?
If I give you 46 random pages of code from the kernel, How well are you going to be able to talk about it ?
Since when is an FTP server considered part of the kernel? Damn userland wannabes don't even know what the kernel *is* let alone how to develop one.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
It only takes one unusual comment to be identical and the game is up.
The code now, or as submitted, is unimportant. The fact that the work derived from (else why would the original and seemingly unique comments be there) copyright material is enough.
I haven't seen the SCO code, nor do I care to. But, I have first hand seen a similar case that was won based on the comments in the code.
From the case; "It is the resemblances in inessentials, the small, redundant, even mistaken elements of the copyright work which carry the greatest weight. This is because they are the least likely to have been the result of independent design."
And; "Trivial items may well provide the most eloquent testimony"
And finally; "Both suites of programs
contained the same spelling mistakes in the comment lines and the same redundant code. The
judge did not accept the argument that this was due to programming style."
...but couldn't that mean that they started with the same source and changed the code, instead of that they'd started with different code and copied the comments? Anyone know which is more likely?
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
As the author of the article stated himself:
:)
As long as there are no original sources available where nothing is altered or deleted - especially the dates - and as long as SCO does not give any evidence that the sources under scrutiny are unaltered, all there allegations are simply said bullshit.
I think at least in Germany they can be sued for misuse of the court and up to now they can be sued for damaging IBM and everybody who sells and supports LINUX.
Well - let us sue them into oblivion
CU
This means SCO is in some serious shit if they testify under oath!
Bring it on SCO. I dare you!
My guess is IBM wants to take them to court and prove they perjured themselves and commited fraud by inserting these comments. It would be very damming to the lawyers and SCO itself if they did what you said. SCO can not pull this off.
This is why IBM is quiet and such a move by SCO would be the best counter-fud ever. All these fortune 500 companies who are now ready to ditch Linux will continue to use it again and not ever purchase anything from SCO again. Nothing like counterfud returning to them.
They are the only ones who still purchase their crappy products. Wont anymore I am sure.
Hell to make matters even worse for SCO, the comments are copyrighted according to the borne convention. This means they can not only be blasted for perjury and fraud from the shareholders but can also be sued for copyright infringment by the authors of the comments.
PS Does anyone know when the trial supposed to go to court and how long it may be? Every month its delayed with constant fud Linux's image goes down and its hurting many distributors like RedHat.
http://saveie6.com/
...all this news about the upcoming Apple 970- Incidents and accidents; Hints and allegations; but still not new information (and people just keep posting the same old stuff with a different author)
And THAT, is not OSS.
1) We have no function names, no file names, not even a precise description of what code or comments. Now, true, this guy says he was shown PAGES of code - NOT files, but Xerox copies - and that most of the Linux code was from Linux mailing list posts. Still, he can't write down (or remember, if he was not allowed to write notes) function names or specific comments? Something fishy, there.
2) He says some of the comments are identical but the code next to them ISN'T. This makes no sense unless SCO manipulated the comments. But why would SCO place identical comments next to non-identical code? Isn't that an OBVIOUS fake? Why would SCO do an OBVIOUS fake? Are they that stupid? Or was it an attempt to show fake code to analysts that will NOT be shown to the court - in other words, a publicity stunt?
3) This story doesn't resolve anything or even contribute to anything given its omissions and ambiguity.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Please tell me your sig is not in German, because if it is, there goes 3 years of German that I guess never sunk in!
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
how much money does he have to finance a lawsuit against SCO?
SCO against IBM is a non-starter - one guy against SCO is also likely a non-starter...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
The question remains, who did the copying. My bet is that SCO copied the code into Linux.
Our primary means of revenue is licensing of our source code. The jokes are the only significant value of this source. As events of the last few months have shown, ridicule and laughter are what makes our company great. By shamefully incorporating the jokes into an open source product, IBM has removed the only rational reason why anyone would pay to license our IP. Our copying of large sections of the Linux code into our own products is irrelevent to the discussion because we deliberately removed any good jokes in the process.
Looks like we all should start grabbing *BSD ISO's and CVS trees and start over. Makes me kind of glad I got a Mac.
I'm not saying we should be throwing in the towel just yet, but SCO sure has managed to knee linux right in the enterprise stomach and seems to be digging in for a long fight.
I know that this has severely hurt the chances of getting linux in my Fortune 100 company, no matter who the vendor is (HPaQ, Sun, IBM...it won't matter how many or few letters they have in their name). Linux - even if vindicated - will be relegated to niche apps (probably embedded appliances) and the chances of finally getting open source projects brought in will be even slimmer than they are now.
SCO hurt themselves and damaged the entire linux/open source community with this money-grab. I will take great pleasure in dancing on SCO's grave and will be one of the first persons making bids on their equipment when it's put up for auction.
Mind the gap...
and his name was Paul Drum. Yeah he was a NT admin and this retard supports SCO. What a tard!
Unless the comments have no bearing on the actual code (unlikely), they would have been removed if the code changed to such an extent that the old comment wasn't meaningful anymore. One of the worst things in programming is misleading comments. Whenever you find those, you nuke'em before they bite you at the next debugging session.
I think it's most likely that SCO simply took some random comments and inserted them in their code just to "pretend".
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Q: Who is Darl McBride's future roomy?
A: Samuel Waksal
Is it just me, or does the blue space on the globe look like a partial outline of that other corporate mascot, Mickey Mouse? If you look at it symbolically, it's as if the old boy is casting his shadow over an otherwise unsuspecting world.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
Yeah, so what are YOU going to? Sit on your fat ass and watch news on TV and gripe about your government, your country, and your country's business leaders. Or perhaps write a note to congress? Do you think either of those actually accomplish anything? Of course not!
Here.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
Even after a cease and desist letter that file is still available. I wonder if SCO will take him seriously. If they don't I hope that the guy sues the ever living shit out of SCO. I don't know about the international barriers but the DMCA could come into play here.
As for the guy who said he saw the evidence against IBM without signing the NDA. I find it very unusual that SCO used excerpts from a mailing list. They have to have more than that, right? The validity of his claims have to be proven, sorry The Inquirer's news sometimes doesn't pan out to be the truth.
But, it looks like some people are taking my advice (see subject).
Heavy SCOtch drinkers risk getting the DTs.
Once I'd found the real author of the code, I'd notify him, and watch the fun as he tries to sign the NDA. It'd get real entertaining real fast.
Litigious bastards
I have a question, since all can view the linux source, how do we know sco just didn't fix thier sorce to look like linux?
If someone checked in code that supposedly belonged to SCO, why not just walk the CVS logs to figure out who did it?
In that case, they could sue the author of the checked-in code chunks for violation of copyright.
Has anyone plowed through the CVS logs to take a quick peek if any sco.com minions are embedded there?
I'd certainly be able to memorize at least one line and then use grep!
I dunno man, I think that's a pretty valid bias.
What was the basis for judgement? Contract law or copyright? If the latter, your lawyer stunk. If the prior, I could believe it, though I tend to disagree with the thinking, the law supports the decision.
20 years is an awfully long time for a secret to stick.
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
has anyone else seen this?
Sigged!
They realized IBM is ignoring them. So now they will turn to a few vendors (Suse and Red Hat). I fck'n hate people who do nothing but sue sue sue. I wish a higher power could see this and shut them the hell up.
One of the best ones so far!
If I'm recalling things right:
a) IBM contracted a german team to do some work on Linux to get it running on 390s;
b) Someone there copied code from IBM's AIX code base into the Linux code base;
c) There is a 60 line function in the scheduler that appears to be copied verbatim from the AIX code base;
d) A memory management routine appears to be copied verbatim from the AIX code base.
Where's Sherlock when we need him? This should be enough info to locate the two nastiest infringment complaints SCO has.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
abdominoscope abdominoscopy aberroscope absconce abscond absconded abscondedly abscondence absconder absconsa abscoulomb acroscopic actinoscopy actinostereoscopy aerobioscope aeroscope aeroscopic aeros copically aeroscopy aethrioscope agglutinoscope albuminoscope albumoscope alethoscope aleuroscope alfresco altiscope amblyoscope Amphidiscophora amphidiscophoran anaglyphoscope anamorphoscope Androscog gin anemoscope angiodiascopy angioscope anomaloscope anorthoscope anoscope anoscopy anoxyscope anthroposcopy antiepiscopal antiepiscopist antiscolic antiscorbutic antiscorbutical antispectroscopic antr oscope antroscopy aphengescope aphengoscope aphenoscope archiepiscopacy archiepiscopal archiepiscopally archiepiscopate archscoundrel areroscope arthroendoscopy ascocarp ascocarpous Ascochyta ascogenou s ascogone ascogonial ascogonidium ascogonium ascolichen Ascolichenes ascoma ascomycetal ascomycete Ascomycetes ascomycetous ascon Ascones ascophore ascophorous Ascophyllum ascorbic ascospore ascospori c ascosporous Ascot ascot Ascothoracica astigmatoscope astigmatoscopy astroscope Astroscopus astroscopy astrospectroscopic atamasco Atamosco auriscope auriscopy auscultascope Auscultoscope auscultoscop e autechoscope autolaryngoscope autolaryngoscopic autolaryngoscopy autophonoscope autophthalmoscope autoscope autoscopic autoscopy autostethoscope babasco bacterioscopic bacterioscopical bacterioscopic ally bacterioscopist bacterioscopy barbasco baroscope baroscopic baroscopical Bascology basiscopic bescorch bescorn bescoundrel bescour bescourge biomicroscopy bioscope bioscopic bioscopy biscotin bron choesophagoscopy bronchoscope bronchoscopic bronchoscopist bronchoscopy brontoscopy butterscotch Carcinoscorpius cardioscope casco cascol cavascope celioscope celioscopy centriscoid ceraunoscope ceraun oscopy cerebroscope cerebroscopy choloscopy chorepiscopal chorepiscopus chromascope chromatoscope chromatoscopy chromodiascope chromoscope chromoscopic chromoscopy chronoscope chronoscopic chronoscopic ally chronoscopy churchscot Cinemascope cisco Cnidoscolus cockscomb cockscombed codiscoverer coelioscopy colonoscope colonoscopy colposcope colposcopy comparascope conoscope coroscopy coscoroba cosmosc ope counterscoff countersconce couscous couscousou cranioscopical cranioscopist cranioscopy crescograph crescographic cryoscope cryoscopic cryoscopy cryptoscope cryptoscopy curiescopy cuscohygrine cusc onine cyclonoscope cycloscope cymoscope cystoscope cystoscopic cystoscopy dactyloscopic dactyloscopy datiscoside defectoscope dehydroascorbic dermatoscopy descort Desmoscolecidae Desmoscolex deuterosco pic deuteroscopy deutoscolex diaphanoscope diaphanoscopy diascope diascopy diascord diascordium dichroiscope dichrooscope dichroscope dichroscopic dioptoscopy dioptroscopy Dioscorea Dioscoreaceae diosc oreaceous dioscorein dioscorine dipleidoscope discoach discoactine discoblastic discoblastula discobolus discocarp discocarpium discocarpous discocephalous discodactyl discodactylous discogastrula disc oglossid Discoglossidae discoglossoid discographical discography discohexaster discoid discoidal Discoidea Discoideae discolichen discolith discolor discolorate discoloration discolored discoloredness discolorization discolorment discolourization Discomedusae discomedusan discomedusoid discomfit discomfiter discomfiture discomfort discomfortable discomfortableness discomforting discomfortingly disco mmend discommendable discommendableness discommendably discommendation discommender discommode discommodious discommodiously discommodiousness discommodity discommon discommons discommunity discomorula discompliance discompose discomposed discomposedly discomposedness discomposing discomposingly discomposure discomycete Discomycetes discomycetous Disconanthae disconanthous disconcert disconcerted di sconcertedly disconcertedness disconcerting disconcertingly disconcertingness disconcertion disconcertment disconcord disconduce disconducive Disconectae disconform disconformable disconformity discong ruity disconjure disconnect disconnected disconnectedly d
At least give us a pointer to the court docs. They are public information, you know.
....Sooooo, they're basically full of hot air? Who's going to pop them? I know a million nerds who want to be the first =)) (MEEEEEEEEEE firsssttt!!!)
I mean, really, this is ridiculus, a 1.5 billion lawsuit over some silly nerd jokes?
I just use the old traditional car analogy when I try to explain it to people.
Here 'tis:
I make alternators, you make engines, leroy over there makes wheels, bubba makes frames and bodies and etc. Now we could all sit around and try to sell this stuff to each other with all sorts of schemes and deals and middlemen and whatnot, or we could all just cooperate completely and share a part with each other and all of us wind up with a pretty cool and snazzy complete car at very little cost to anyone. Then we *all* have our own good car to go drive to "real work" in. And whenever I build a newer better alternator I chip it in, and so does the engine guy, and so on. We do this forever, we are always driving a new car for real reasonable and not much hassle. And once in awhile someone totally new joins our car co-op group, like the new guy this week we added has a really nice car sound system we all get to add to our cars. Cool beans. Fat city.
But I need to actually have the source in electronic form. Is there any place to get it (legally)?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
a 199 million dollar coffeepot?
KFG
What was the basis for judgement? Contract law or copyright?
Definitely contract law. Copyright really wouldn't apply in our case since we didn't redistribute any code. One of the end results was a revocation of our license to use the system. I would argue that SCO is using their UNIX/AIX contract dispute with IBM as a stepping stone to a copyright infringement case - if they win against IBM (which would necessarily include proving that IBM migrated UNIX code into Linux), it goes a long way towards proving any possible future copyright infringement cases against Linux vendors.
> how much money does he have to finance a lawsuit
> against SCO?
As much as he needs. You think he can't get donations from IBM? The FSF? EFF? Other kernel authors? Thousands of slashdot readers? Free legal help from the likes of Lawrence Lessig?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
OTOH, pathetic jokes by nerds all look the same...
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
I received the following in my Inbox this morning:
THIS IS ONLY A WORKING TRANSLATION; I DO NOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AS TO POSSIBLE MISTAKES OR ERRORS. I WILL NOT TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY CONCERNING THE CONTENT OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT.
Today, I had the possibility to have a look at the incriminating code passages.
Due to a mistake on the part of the representing lawyer's office, my colleague and I - as opposed to the 7 other representatives that were allowed to look at things today - did not have to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement. This was in full contrast to the examiners of Microsoft corp., who apparently had to maintain silence even towards their own superiors and may only give notice to the internal company audit department.
Now for the code itself:
Under the supervision of a notary public, 46 pages were shown, each containing, by one half, code from Linux (for the most part, print-outs of posts taken directly from the Linux-Kernel-Mailing List) and, by the other half, listings of SCO. Whether these are indeed sources of SysV is not comprehensible that way, as they are taken out of their context. Another interesting thing is that all date and time details have been removed from both, even from the comments. The comments themselves are really identical here and there, even some jokes are the same on both sides. It is, however, conspicuous that in the places that correspond most, the source code that can be found in front of the comments is quite dissimilar after all. The fundamental construction of the queried functions is similar; however, the concrete implementation is quite different. Variables and names of functions are different, loops are structured differently, conditions work via chain queries (?) (Kettenabfrage) or bit patterns (?) (Bitmuster). All in all, only one thing can be said for certain: The functions offered by the respective code passages are often equal, which, however, was to be expected from the start anyway.
In the concrete implementation, there are, however, so many differences, that a proof of the origin being the same will be difficult, even though certainly not impossible.
The crunch, however, is a function of the scheduler, which is, over a length of about 60 lines, indeed identical except for slight differences. In this section, there is also a whole lot of corresponding comments.
Comparable similarity can only be found in one routine of the memory management, which is, however, only in the Linux version accompanied by comments.
Whether a competent proof can be made out of these two correspondences can only be estimated with certainty by a lawyer. I consider the vague similarities in other passages to be insufficient, as the same standards were the basis for both and therefore, a certain correspondence is to be expected.
Concerning the same comments to different source passages, I can see no rhyme or reason in it. This would in any case have to be investigated in again meticulously, in particular with the date and time details provided. Because only with these could a breach of copyright be proved at all.
Concerning the discussion about the part of Linux sold under the GPL by SCO/Caldera, it must be stated that up to the present, no court has had to decide on the legal validity of the GPL. Should this, however, be ascertained, which is not certain, SCO can use only those parts of Linux by way of comparison that were not published by SCO and in the development or co-development SCO did not take part. I consider this, too, a difficulty in the proceedings to come.
As the original, unpatched Linux-sources were not touched but only modifications that had been inserted by different distributors, it has to be clarified in any case whether these might have rights to the queried passages, be it directly or indirectly, e.g. through company mergers, take-overs, "all-inclusive"-deals etc. The chances for proceedings to open are not especially good, as in most comparable
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
I wonder how the Times determines what that I.B.M. has periods, and SCO does not... I for one, have never seen IBM written as I.B.M. so it really jumps off the page as looking rather odd.
Another news item about SCO, I think /. needs a new section.
If we each bought a few shares of SCO, for a total of 51%, then assigned them to a proxy, we could vote the assholes out with out their golden parachutes!!!!
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
From NetCraft: Recent Changes at Notable Sites:
The SCO website is running Linux! How ironic!Host localhost (127.0.0.1) appears to be up
(1) So what if you were found in violation of the other companies license. Since you made a replacement, you had no need of their original software. Nothing in the law can prevent you from using your replacement.
(2) One is only legally liable if one had knowledge of infringement. If IBM inserted proprietary code into Linux in violation of their license agreements, they and no one else is responsible. No-one else had any way of knowing that IBM did that. By the definition of proprietary (secret) code, it is impossible for anyone else -- other than IBM and SCO -- to know if IBM inserted proprietary code into any FOSS.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Not that I have anything against kernel development per se, I actually have a sizeable amount of systems programming experience myself, but I'm really just trying to make a point.
Even though I have no intention of ever contributing to Linux kernel development, SCO wouldn't ever agree to let someone like me see the code even if I signed their NDA because my opinions are less than worthless to them. I am nobody. Although I believe I could if I were given the chance, they would never accept that an unknown like myself would be able to either validate or (more likely, IMO) authoratively refute their claims.
The signing of the NDA is just a formality that bears disturbing resemblance to an initiation ritual for an underground secret society. You have to be deemed "worthy" by SCO in order to even sign it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I found the second link (re: kernel developer getting uppity with SCO) to be much more interesting. He claims to be the author (or significant modifier) of code which SCO purports to be in violation.
This isn't the case. SCO hasn't even publically stated which parts of Linux are supposedly in violation, they have just stated that there's some violation(s) in the kernel. The developer in the second link doesn't claim to have authored code that SCO has claimed to be copied; he claims to be a co-author of the Linux kernel, which SCO is still distributing.
His remark in short is "The violation is yours, 'cause I wrote the code".
No, his remark is: "If you won't release every part of this binary I am coauthor of under the GPL, then you are redistributing my code without adhering to my license on it, and you are violating my copyright." This doesn't necessarily even mean that SCO's plagarism claims are false, only that if they pursue those claims then they have themselves been unknowingly violating Linux developers' copyrights for years and are knowingly doing so at this minute.
In a challenge to SCO, he's threatening to sue SCO unless they remove the paticular code sections from their list of copyright violations.
No, he's threatening to sue SCO unless they "retroactively" make their distribution of Linux compatible with the GPL (which, if any kernel code has been copied from SCO, would require SCO to license it under the GPL).
...that some of SCO's allegations are certainly wrong in detail, and that certain specific code sections (like the scheduler) are under fire.
Now if someone can recall some of the strings that they saw and grep the kernel for them we can probably have a little chapter-and-verse from which to answer some of SCO's whining directly.
We have made progress against this stupidity, even if it's not as rapid or dramatic as you'd hoped. It'll be interesting to see how the threat of a countersuit impacts SCO's shares when the less technical sites pick it up.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I just gotta shake my head at all this.
There are a hell of a lot of people who were not a participant in any supposed code that wrongly got in in Linux, nor did they do anything to say they approve of any such problemmatic code. Like most all that use Linux.
They use Linux because they want to get away from corporate IP Bitchslapping!!!!!
Whether or not there is problematic code doesn't mean SCO lost money because if it. It's clear SCO is losing money because people want to move away from the IP bitchslapping.
The guilty party(s) should stop hurting the many who clearly don't want the guilty party(s).
It seems clear to me that a class action law suit can be made againt SCO and any other guilty party.
Curiously, SCO did not show any actual Linux kernel code - only postings to the linux-kernel email list. So perhaps a 'bad' submission got filtered out by Linus and other reviewers and did not get into the actual kernel. Maybe it was rejected with comments like: "doh, you want to move _this_ cruft into the kernel? No way!" :-) <p> The 2.5 kernel's scheduler for example does not have any 60-line (or bigger) function that came from IBM or any other former Unix company. In fact there is no such scheduler function in the 2.4 or 2.2 kernels either. SCO clearly would have shown these people *actual kernel code*, not posting to some mailing list - if any such code existed ...
Seems like there should be a minimal number of ~60 line functions with jokes in the core Linux kernel. Has anyone taken a look?
So... in those circumstances (ie, absent an NDA), SCO have no legal comeback at all to you photographing their "evidence" and fair-using it to judge your own exposure to their frivolous litigation?
If so, it would be interesting to tee up another SCO meeting, have someone take the abovementioned shots through a peephole in the ceiling without any NDA-bound people knowing, and use the results in a fair-use fashion to discuss said legal exposure. Light blue touch-paper, retire to a safe distance?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Legally interesting...
Since SCO did not disclose that author's name to you, it can't be covered by their NDA - true/false?
How much could you tell the developer about the code you had seen before their NDA bit you? Since SCO did not supply filenames and line numbers to you, their NDA does not cover you giving him file and line - true/false?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Nobody seems to be discussing what happens next?
SCO have said they will have an announcement before the market opens. What do you think it will be?
For the benefit of any other anonymous German developers planning to get their "uppity" on, a friendly word of advice: Obnoxious corporations are not generally spooked by legal amateur hour; at least not here in the U.S. Although the superfluous footnoting was a nice touch, the overall content just didn't have that certain pedantic ... je ne sais quoi.
... for some reason, those seem to be the most unstoppable.)
... of course, I *could* be talked out of it if you were to stop [insert undesirable behavior here]." Jesus, man ... that's not smoove.
For future reference, that's just not how you punk a litigious sack of shit like SCO. Instead, think of it as a slightly larger version of Pokemon, only the little buggers suddenly lost their souls! You have to catch your own "Litigimon" to do proper battle. (Also, just like in the cartoon, the more obnoxious the damn thing is, the better
Anyway, just a little tough love for any other would-be ballbusters out there. I'm pulling for you, trust me, but you have to do that shit right. If you're gonna to come over here and join our crew, come heavy. Bring a little something besides that weak-ass, cross-continential chest-puffing routine. Above all, never, ever throw like a girl. This is of the utmost importance.
One final piece of advice. Negotiation is an art, and one that requires a certain measure of tactical skill. I'm sad to say, this is not a particular skill you were born with, or otherwise possess. Generally speaking, one doesn't come out of the gate with, "I'm going to sue the PANTS off you
In America, first you get their attention, then you get the power, THEN you get women.
- nocturne
(p.s. I only push you so hard because I care.)
/* Pleurez, pleurez, mes yeux, et fondez vous en eau! La moitie de ma vie a mis l'autre au tombeau. - Corneille */
*sigh*
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
However I'd bet on the stuff in common (assuming it exists at all) being in some architecture specific piece of code (ia64? 360?) - does the ia64 need a special scheduer anyone know?
Many of the comments in the Linux kernel are from the posix specification which is available on the internet. http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/
It makes a lot of sense for a developer to copy the specification as comments and fill it up with implementation details. That's the way I would do it! That would explain why comments are the same and code is different.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
From the beginning, I am missing an important point. Even if SCO shows 10,000 lines of code similar in the Linux Kernel and in their own sources, how could they prove they did not copy/paste ? Is there an organism in the US where they could have registered their code in something like 1992 ? We have this in France.
It's interesting how "missing writings" seem to show up in Uath from time to time. Wanna bet
Amendment 2 is a forgery like most of them are?
Today i had the opportunity to take a look at the code part in question.
Due to an error of the laywers my collegue and i, other than the 7 other commissioned, did't had to sign an NDA. Different to the employes of microsoft, who had to keep silent even to their bosses, and where only allowed to talk to their auditing department.
To the code itself:
There has been an notarial act of 46 pages split equally in parts from Linux (large parts printed directly from post to the kernel mailing list) and listings from SCO. If these have been truly SysV Sources, remains unclear, and is not traceable for me, since they have been ripped out of context.
It is also interesting to note that all the dates have been ripped out of the text, even out of the comments.
The comments itself are partially identic, the source code of the function differs on most parts. The structure of the code in question seems to be related the implementation differs quite a lot. The variable and the function names are different. Loops are structured differntly, comments run over chained ifs or bitpatterns. Only one thing can be said for certain:
The coresponding code sniplets provide similar functionality, which had to be expected.
There are many differences in the implementation that a evidence over a common code base seems to be difficult, if not impossible.
The crux of the matter is the schedular code where 60 lines of code are largly identical even into the comments. A similarity close to the one seen in the schedular can only be seen in the memory management, which is only commented in the linux version. If there is enough evidence out of these sniplets can only be decided by an laywer. The vague similarities in different parst are insufficient, since both are depending on the same standard. I don't get any clues out of the partly identical comments on both . This should be reviewed again with dates, to have any evidence.
To the discussion about SCO/Caldera and their published code under GPL, it has to be said, that no court has proved the legal certainty of the GPL. Should these be proved, which is unceirtan, SCO can only the parts of linux which have not been published by SCO and on which development SCO has not been involved. This is one difficulty in the coming lawsuit.
Since the original unpatched sources are not attacked, but modifications, which are part of different distributions, it has to be checked under every circumstance if the companys which published the code have any rights on the published code. This could be by mergers, takeovers, "all-inclusive" deal and other. The chances that this case will open seem to be low since a lot of cases like this there had been an agreement out of court.
This is only my personal opinion, authorative is only the jugement of the court.
(ED: To post later in the thread)
> How could you come to this code review?
Our company has developed some products on the linux basis and so we agreed to review with to employees. The rules for the microsoft employees has been aproved, but i don't see any reason in this rules.
The missing NDA seems to be an error of the chambers since some employees of SIEMENS/ Nixdorf also didn't had to sign an NDA.
> Please kontakt me:
IANAL. Don't take my wordings for granted and not for any base for suing.
I don't wan't to make any more utterances, since we have come to an agreement in our company and i don't wan't to make any trouble.
My collegue has a different opinion and thinks the evidence given by SCO can not be proved. But this has to be ruled out by the court.
It isn't consistent with the SCO VP of Engineering selling all of his stock, including exercising all his options. If he thought SCO was a good investment (and a Linux owned by SCO probably would be), why did he go to the trouble of selling all of it?
So why would the VP of Engineering think SCO a BAD investment?
I don't know for sure, either but the way to bet is that he agrees with the rest of us here on the validity of the SCO lawsuit.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I have (in part) translated the following german posting, without checking
7 4& t=1716
...
... (follows author's cautious assessment of the
authenticity or checking back with the author. Also, I am no
translator by profession, so there may be a number of errors. Probably
I have somehow managed to get most of the points made... As it is, I
can take no responsibility for the content of the text, nor for the
validity of the translation, although I made it to my best knowledge.
Dr. Franz Sauerzopf
Low Temperature Physics
Atominstitut, TU Wien
http://forum.golem.de/phorum/read.php?f=44&i=17
Autor: Dr. Stefan Hildemann
Datum: 10.06.03 18:33
Due to an error of the lawyers, my colleague and I did not have to sign a
non-disclosure agreement, unlike the 7 other experts allowed to review
the code excerpts.
Presented were 46 pages, half of which consisted of code from Linux
(most of it printed postings from the Linux-Kernel-Mailinlist, the
other half listings from SCO. It could not be checked if these are
true SysV sources, because they were taken out of the context.
Interesting is also, that all dates and times have been removed, even
from comment lines.
The comments in some places actually are identic, even some jokes are
the same in both parts of sources. Noticably though, is that the code
near the comments in most cases is rather different. The basic design
of the functions under discussion is rather similar, but the real
implementation differs , variable and function names are different,
and the loops are differently structured, conditions are checked via
repeated queries(if? ger: Kettenabfragen) or bit patterns. Generally, only one thing can be
safely stated: The functionality supplied by the code fragments is
often the same, but this had to be expected anyway. In the concrete
implementation there are so many differences, that evidence for the
same provenience of the code cannot easily be confirmed, but still may
be possible. One of the most significant fragments is part of a
function of the scheduler, which is almost identical over a length of
almost 60 lines. Here is also a large number of identic comments. A
comparable large similarity is also seen in a function of the memory
management, but in this case only the linux version is commented. If
from these two matching code fragments a case can be made, cannot be
said with certainty
validity in an eventual court case. -- especially the identical
comment lines may be a problem. -- the "path" of the code during
mergers and buy-outs has also to be checked).
remember this comment from linus about the (not accepting kernel patches for ) scheduler:
...
from kernel achive"
"The scheduler is about 100 lines
out of however-many-million (3.8 at least count), and doesn't even impact most normal performace very much. "
"Let's face it - the current scheduler has the same old basic structure that it did almost 10 years ago, and yes, it's not optimal, but there
really aren't that many real-world loads where people really care. I'm sorry, but it's true. "
Basically he is saying "the scheduler never
changed." This is before the O(1) change.
elsewere he wrote:
I wrote what is _still_ largely the algorithm in 1991, and it's damn near the only piece of code from back then that even _has_ some similarity to the original code still
Maybe SCO is saying again that it is interesting. That is basically their claim. They say they own (something) about unix, and the scheduler is something very generic about linux.
Note that after this post the O(1) scheduler was implemented so ther are big changes in 2.5 and and later 2.4 kernels.
Um, well - probably not.
Absent NDA, I don't think that SCO could stop you copying thier code, that you legally had in your possesion, for the purposing of judging your own exposure. Note that it is always legal to have GPL liscenced code in your possession, whether or not you agree to the liscence. This situation does not apply to most commercial liscences.
Obtaining a copy of the code by industrial espionage really pollutes the 'good faith' fair use claim. Note that in your second paragraph, your talking about distributing the code, rather than for direct risk management - again, further complicating the situation.
Also, SCO are claiming trade secret violation, not copyright violation. That's a significant asymetry in the legal standings between the two sides. There are no fair use exceptions in trade secret law, as far as I am aware.
I think [0] if you were to obtain SCO's 'evidence' by espionage that they would be able to slap you with a preliminary injunction against spreading the information about, on the grounds that they have minimised distribution pre-discovery. Judges are quite keen to let the courts work the way they were intended, and, coupled with a trade secrets case, I can't see any reason for the judge not to grant an injunction. Note that SCO can claim that the NDA also protects the Linux code - they are minimising thier breach of copyright, which is useful to support a fair use claim.
In short - what you are talking about would fall foul of more than just copyright issues, and there is a fair use exception only for copyright.
[0] Disclaimer: I'm not lisceced to practice law in the USA. This is not legal advice, blah blah blah
Why do you think they call it code?
(appended to the end of comments you post)
I presume that it means, this German guy didn't see the "raw" SCO evidence, but he saw SCO's presentation/interpretation/summary of the "evidence"
Reminds me of Bush's presentation of his evidence before the UN. Was also not the "raw" evidence. Because there was no raw evidence. It was all just hot air (...errm, sorry, hydrogen...)
The alternative (a /. reader with no LOTR knowledge) is too horrible to contemplate.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
Question is, How do we educate the corporate world so they can make informed decisions for Linux, and other open source software?
While certainly not an exact match, explaining that the development of a product like Linux operates much like the development of scientific ideas in academia, I find, comes close enough to the truth that most people can grasp it.
The difference, really, is that the "body of scientific work" and most related "publications" end up being executable...
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
I've read the original german text, what he sais is:
- SCO's lawyers forgot to force a person to sign a NDA, that's the reason those details came out
- 46 pages of code were compared, linux on the one side, probably (not sure because they didn't tell it) SysV-code on the other side
- most code was simliar and had some excat matching comments, but the implementation also differed in many points
- 60 lines of scheduler code were a almost exact match (!)
- all dates were cut out so nobody can tell (yet)
for sure who used the code first (but SCO would not start this case if they hadn't evidence imho)
- if the GPL proofs valid, SCO can only attack parts that they have not distributed so far, and those code was only in modifications by others, *not* in the unpatched kernel source tree!
If SCO has the examples, why can't they show it? Well, they claim that the Linux-community is going to remove this code then. However, it would not be a problem. They could for example buy a distro, with kernel sources, that would proove that the code was there. And I don't think it in the Linux-community is able to remove the code without large amounts of email discussing the topic. Furthermore, for me at least, it would be a hard stroke to get to know that Linux ain't as free as they claim. When I use a gpl'd product, I suppose it to be free. As GNU says, software should be thrusted.
Assembling etherkillers for fun an profit
I don't know where the docs are searching google reveals a lot of documents and discussion of the case - I remember the case being quite important at the time.
I also saw the transcripts and the evidence just after the case was finished. It was fairly clear cut from my POV. The comments were *so* damning. Much of the code you could forgive because there are only so many ways to do it, but the comments...no.
The lawyers did well out of it but the end result was crippling for both companies, finally they merged.
So, maybe SCO are looking for a buyout. It would make sense.
The "ancient unix" V6 and V7 code has been out and public for some years now too. It was ancestral to Sys V unix, but could legitimately have been extracted from here and there in free OSs if I understand things aright. There are probably some functions for doing things like finding the first set bit which people were using normalize instructions for back in the early to mid 1970s, but which might have been coded in C in the old pdp11 versions and for which C code might have been kept around for portability to architectures not offering such instructions (with the expectation that in most cases this C code would not be used, perhaps).
The remark that SCO deleted all date information in its "evidence" is IMO highly suspicious. You would not hide dates if they supported your theory.
I haven't seen the SCO code, nor do I care to. But, I have first hand seen a similar case that was won based on the comments in the code.
To which I have to ask: Was one of those products open source? Because if you found identical comments a different code bases, where there should have been no contact, something fishy has happened.
However, here the Linux comments have been available all the time. SCO can simply copy-paste their comments into their old source files and claim they made these comments. No recompile or anything can prove that those comments weren't there.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Would it be uncouth of me to be eagerly awaiting the I.P. lawsuit saga over the "f*ck me gently with a chainsaw" comment?
I'm SURE that the originator of that one will be eager to demonstrate the principle on SCO management if they have stolen it :)
Ian
Better slashdot translation. Includes original German as well.
Time: 9:15 Monday.
SCO stated on Monday that they would make an announcement before the start of business on the NYSE today.
So where is it? Nowhere to be found!
Wanted: One witty yet thought provoking
And who would deserve it more? This particular abuse is a new low for the American legal system, at least in high tech. As for David Boise, I hope this action constitutes the end of his arginally-deserved reputation as a winner, and that it serves as a lesson in both morality and ethics for him.
Hmm, I wonder if he has the spine to offer a public apology.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
16-Jun-2003 11:05 // Took Mary Jane to the vet for her annual check-up. I hope the doc can't tell.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
If they're found to be right, I expect they'll ask the judge for an injunction preventing every person who could have seen the Linux kernel code from ever developing operating system kernel code again.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
NOT!
SCO much like Micro$oft is simply attempting to use groundless arguments in an attempt to slant the market as they see fit. I have personally migrated several companys AWAY from SCO to other flavors including Linux (reuse hardware!). I have NEVER seen or heard of a any company migrating twards it.
Lets all hope it dies a painfull death it deserves.
With a wipe of toilet paper and a mighty flush the thing called SCO is bannished from our behinds...
Did anyone compare the google and altavista translations? ;^)
"Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
Perhaps there is an attorney who is willing to post a small-claims court filing template that can be used by any user/all users of Linux to file small claims suits against SCO for violation of the GPL when used in the LPK, as per: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9952 Seems only fair to wage litigation in a commensurate manner against the offender. I'll bet between 6,000 and 50,000 small claims suits would have the same chilling effect on SCO that SCO's lawsuit had. Tit-for-tat, you know.
17-Jun-2003 19:00 //Last Dance with Mary Jane.
I need a TiVo for my car. Pause live traffic now.
>>this German guy didn't see the "raw" SCO evidence, but he saw SCO's presentation/interpretation/summary of the "evidence"
>Reminds me of Bush's presentation of his evidence before the UN. Was also not the "raw" evidence. Because there was no raw evidence. It was all just hot air (...errm, sorry, hydrogen...)
Wouldn't that be CO2? Only fire breathing dragons would exhale hydrogen. Or did I miss something?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Yes. The so-called "mobile chemical weapons lab" trucks were really just makeing hydrogen for weather balloons...
I just read an interview with Darl McBride on CNet where McBride admits they filed the suit against IBM and then sent their teams of programmers through the code to find similarities. I find this to be rather glaring evidence of extortion, rather than protection of IP rights.
If SCO was really concerned with their Unix licence rather than their failing business, they should have investigate first, and then filed suit if action was needed. Darl saw the leverage negative publicity might bring and decided to exploit it. No matter how victimized he tries to sound, he did things backward and it will bite him in the end.
You misunderstood. I meant that the "hot air" from SCO couldn't be H2 but must be CO2.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
In conclusion, I think that SCO's claims are pure baloney!
So there is a large chunk copied into the linux scheduler source code?
well, it should be easy enough to track all the sources of the kernel/sched.c contributions. the file is not that large...
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
If I give you 46 random pages of code from the kernel, How well are you going to be able to talk about it ?
You'd think he'd remember at least one of the 'jokes' that were the same between comments. That'd help.
with all of the trouble SCO is causing the community, I was shocked to see a SCO ad at the top of the Slashdot page today !!
Sit on your fat ass and watch news on TV and gripe about your government, your country, and your country's business leaders.
Well, actually, no. I don't gripe about the government; I find it very much to my liking. And I most certainly do not gripe about my country; it's the finest country on Earth. And as for my country's business leaders, there are so many it's not possible to paint them with a broad brush. Some are scrupulous. Some are not. And so it goes.
And as for my ass, it's trimmed down quite a bit since I've begun working out, thank you very much for noticing.
Yes, because we all know that Microsoft are responsible for all the Windows users out there who do abuse.
If Microsoft were TELLING Windows users to go download giant files from a competitor just to burn that competitor's bandwidth, then Slashdot would be up in fucking arms.
I seems to me that, aside from the oddly commented areas, the code in question mostly resides in the scheduler. Now, this being a core part of the Linux O/S, I must ask a few questions: a) When was the scheduler last modified/tweaked/updated?
b) How hard would it be to further modify/tweak
If we're prepared to defend our stance, then we should at least start gathering some info.
If SCO does decide to drop the cloak-and-dagger and release some dates (fictive or non), then we can compare and discover if any similar/like code was copied from SCO, or by SCO. Perhaps if there is something a little touchy in the scheduler (which I doubt), it is simply due to similarity of function. Another thing to consider is that $value += $value2; doesn't count to us... but how about a non-programming-savvy judge?
One more time to kill the pa-a-ain!
-uso.
I had a freak accident with a tape of that song.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
Not sure if it's different here, but the comments seem to be evidence of a violation, not the violation in and of themselves. Because the comments are, potentially, a very unique part of a program, they make a good smoking gun. Of course, as they are not functional, they do not allow for damages in themselves.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I think that SCO's claims are pure baloney
Then that means the balloon is sinking, not rising. Thus saying SCO's claims are a bunch of hot air, means they are CO2, not H2.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
There are Very Many Open Source supporters. What if we agreed on a reasonable price, and we all put a call in at that price for 1 SCO share? I believe that we, collectively, would own a majority of SCO in a short number of weeks. Then we can decide, as owners, to make this go away. And, with the appropriate legal help, discard the current leadership, obviously without a bonus. I put up Richard Stallman, Eric Raymond, Bruce Perens, et al. as new board members (I wonder if they're interested :)).
Is SCO public? What's there stock symbol?
SCO has violated the GPL in many of the products it has distributed. Thus, authors of the GPL would be entitled to any of SCO's profits from those products.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Come on, explain this to me, Oh Wise AC!
Does every single Linux user out there represent the Linux/open-source ideology?
Clever signature text goes here.
I can see it now... comments in both code misspelled it's for it and loose for lose, used fsck as an expletive, and referred to some mysterious substance known as pr0n.
IBM will then subpoena 600,000 registered /. users to prove that geeks can't spell.
i used 1,s and 0,s way back in 1959 i,m sueing sco for useing identical 1,s and 0,s throught there unix code!
dont steel these any more!
By definition, yes. Every single Linux user out there represents the Linux/open-source ideology. Unless that ideology is inherently hypocritical, that is.