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.
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
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...
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.
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
What, no kaleidoscope, disco, or scones?
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 lacks farfegnugen"
Table-ized A.I.
More like SCOviet russia. After all, what better place for SCO to be than moSCOw?
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.
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.
"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."
Thats the problem, some do like the word lawsuit.
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?
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
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.
Funny you should mention that.
My sits on the board of a major corporation. He called me the other night to ask about Linux, and the legal issues involved in using it.
It took a few minutes to explain the decentralized nature of Linux and the history (much of which he already knew) of this case so far. Then he told me, "Sounds like a publicity stunt."
Anyway the thing I found interesting about this conversation was that my father, an extremely well educated man, and familiar with the business of software had trouble understanding the nature of open source software.
I suspect that there are many others in this type of position that have no idea how open source software works. They've been inundated with proprietary software for so long, that they seem to be stuck in that mind set.
Question is,
How do we educate the corporate world so they can make informed decisions for Linux, and other open source software?
This signature has Super Cow Powers
The SCOpe of your SCOuring SCOffs at our punny diSCOurse, but don't diSCOunt the SCOrnful diSCOntent eSCOrting these SCOundrels' miSCOnduct. The puns are diSCOmforting, but they are verbal SCOwls that underSCOre the disSCOuragement felt as we diSCOver the latest SCOop regarding their miSCOnstruals of truth. Putting this SCOurge under the microSCOpe may SCOrch their miSCOnceptions before they can abSCOnd from this fiaSCO without settling the SCOre. Vile SCOrpions!
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.
Most people understand the word lawsuit, specially if it comes with $1,000,000,000 as the amount.
SCO actions shows that you should be very careful with licesing software, either proprietary or open.
For instance, they sued IBM, and are threatening them with revoking their AIX license.
What business would want that?
Nobody wants SCO's source code.
I've certainly read links to this story at least twice (though I couldn't say what it was modded at.)
Whether it's BSA nastygrams for potential licence violations, or microsoft trying to enforce the 'no critism' part of their EULA, or apple suing because you because your program uses their aqua interface, or a company suing you because they think you've used their obscure software patent (GIF, JPEG etc), it all demonstrates that no matter what you use, you are always under threat from legal action in the US.
It would make more sense for small companies to lobby for reform in tort law, or even the copyright/patent/trademark laws than to try and pick a 'safe' IT infrastructure.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
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...
here's the whole article Novell backs off copyright claims against SCO Juan Carlos Perez, IDG News Service 10/06/2003 08:25:59 The SCO Group Inc. has found what it says is proof that it owns all copyrights related to the Unix operating system, a claim rival Novell Inc. had contested last month and for which SCO may seek to recoup damages. SCO said Friday the proof is in an amendment to the asset purchase agreement through which SCO acquired Unix from Novell in 1995. The amendment dates from 1996. "Today we slammed the door shut on (this copyright question) and threw away the key once and for all, so this issue doesn't come up again," said Darl McBride, SCO's president and chief executive officer, in an interview. Last month, Novell said it hadn't transferred Unix's copyrights nor patents to SCO as part of their Unix purchase agreement. But in light of SCO's finding, Novell on Friday reluctantly acknowledged that the amendment "appears to support SCO's claim that ownership of certain copyrights for Unix did transfer to SCO in 1996." However, Novell reiterated its claim that it holds the Unix patents. Novell's response has left SCO's McBride dissatisfied. He wants Novell to issue a clear retraction and to own up to its incorrect claim regarding Unix copyright ownership, which left it "with eggs all over its face," McBride said. "It's not our desire to litigate with Novell, but we believe they do need to take responsibility for their improper actions and for the injury and harm they've done to us in the marketplace" by claiming SCO didn't own the Unix copyrights, McBride said. SCO's legal team is looking into the matter and may advise the company to seek money from Novell for damages, McBride said. On the question of patents, McBride said Novell's name isn't on the Unix patents, but rather AT&T Corp.'s, which is the company that first developed the operating system. The patents are enforced by the copyright holder, which in this case is SCO, McBride said. Novell didn't return calls seeking comment. At any rate, the companies are involved in nothing more than a war of words so far. Neither has raised the issue with a court. The Unix product in question is Unix System V, which is the core Unix code which SCO owns and licenses to third-parties which then use it to create their own derivative Unix versions, such as Hewlett-Packard Co.'s HP-UX, IBM Corp.'s AIX and Sun Microsystems Inc.'s Solaris. Novell, based in Provo, Utah, launched its challenge last month in order to poke holes into SCO's legal challenges against the open-source Linux operating system. SCO has made allegations that Unix code it owns has been illegally copied into Linux software, including the Linux operating system kernel. In Friday's statement, Novell again reiterated its demand that SCO present evidence to back up its allegations. SCO's McBride said the company has already begun showing its evidence to analysts, customers and other industry players. So far, SCO, based in Lindon, Utah, has only formally sued one company over Unix and Linux: IBM. In March, SCO sued IBM, seeking at least US$1 billion, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, contract interference and breach of contract, in attempts to damage Unix to benefit its Linux business. Related to the case, McBride said SCO has also found evidence of AIX code having been copied into Linux software. SCO has purposefully decided not to proceed with a copyright or patent violation charge against IBM, or anybody else for that matter so far, because it believes the avenue it has taken against IBM puts it on much stronger legal ground, its executives have said. SCO also warned commercial Linux vendors of possible liabilities. It has also sent letters to about 1,500 large companies warning them they could be held liable for intellectual property violations related to their use of Linux software, and issued the same warning to commercial users in general via a press release last month. The warning has outraged and concerned many commercial Linux users. SCO has n
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.
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)
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...
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."
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
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?
Heh, heh, heh. That Kenel developer has a very powerful legal mechanism to use against SCO for violating his copyright. The DCMA. He can send a DCMA takedown notice to get his copyrighted work removed from SCO's internet sites. If they don't comply, he can send the notice to SCO's upstream ISP to get the entire web/ftp site taken down.
I just love the irony.
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.
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.
It's the Digital Millennium Copyright Act... or DMCA.
Laws are for people with no friends.
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 ...
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
How long did it take you to think of that, and was it worth it?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
At least I was consistantly wrong.
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?
you must feel very manly. you clearly have the bigger dict.
(It's the DMCA, btw, not DCMA)
But that's beside the point. The DMCA only prevents the creation and distribution of technologies which can be used to decrypt encryption techniques employed to protect a copyrighted work. There is no digital encryption happening here, so the DMCA doesn't apply.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It is people thinking and working their posts that make Slashdot worth reading.
If it all was "w00000t f1rst p0st" and " sucks|r0x0rz" I wouldn't be here right now.
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 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
The provision I'm talking about is the ISP safe harbor which protects them from copyright infrigement liability. The ISP gets a takedown notice, they remove access to the material for a minimum of 10 business days, the owner of the web site can send a counter-notice to have the material put back. The ISP is now protected against any lawsuit.
I ought to know. I get several of those d*mned notices every month.
D*mn it. I can't spell anything right tonight.
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...)
They then further chickened out by challenging SCO to produce some evidence.
Some chickening - more like roostering methinks.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
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.
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?
Did anyone compare the google and altavista translations? ;^)
"Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
:) No problem. I just thought that you should get a polite correction instead of what some angry idiots around here might say.
Laws are for people with no friends.
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.
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.
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.
This cant be right because I cant see how AIX code would function unchanged on x86.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.