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.

Comments

There isn't much left of this dead horse

[ObviousGuy]

Incidents and accidents. Hints and allegations.

And yet we have NO NEW INFORMATION ABOUT ANYTHING PERTINENT.

I fail to understand

[Keri Immos]

I can also view Linux source code without signing an NDA. It's open source, after all.

Re:I fail to understand

[Anonymous Coward]

The NDA is to be told which parts they think are violating, retard.

Re:I fail to understand

[DickBreath]

The NDA is to be told which parts they think are violating

This is very interesting.

Notice how quite IBM is being in their legal case. Contrast with SCO which is making as much noise as possible. All of the press, the hourly soap opera updates, are all either from third parties, or from SCO. Not from IBM. In other words, SCO is playing this for PR.

Since when does a company involved in litigation show their evidence under NDA?

Hey, I'm suing CompanyX! But I'll show my case, secretly under NDA, to anyone and everyone. I don't want CompanyX to see my case. But I will allow others who sign an NDA to see my case before trial.

Why isn't IBM allowing everyone to see their evidence under an NDA? For that matter why doesn't every litigant follow this practice? It must all be for PR value. Translated: FUD. Who gains the most from such public FUD?

In fact, I wounder how the judge will view SCO's actions? Showing their evidence to anyone under an NDA? Any lawyers care to comment on this?

SCO is so stupid

[the_2nd_coming]

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.

Perhaps

[mgcsinc]

SCO just thought no slashdotters would be able to understand a German guy... but alas, they underestimated the power of the Babelfish

I'm getting sick of this SCO BS...

[xactoguy]

... 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?

Yes, that's what we've been missing!

[Otter]

All these stories we've been getting about how some anonymous person told an unnamed source that he heard something about SCO and Linux code -- all good, but if only they had been Babelfished first! Clearly this story sets a new standard for daily SCO rumors.

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."

SCO code =Bad chop job?

[Limburgher]

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. . .

Re:SCO code =Bad chop job?

[SkArcher]

This thing of 'the dates in the comments have been removed' sounds to me like a bad attempt at a cover up. AFAIK, every developer worth his salt dates everything. besides this is the fact that the corresponding code is merely similar - by what virtue can SCO claim that comments, which are not part of the actual operating code, form a more significant part of the source than the actual code?

Re:SCO code =Bad chop job?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Every developer I know worth their salt doesn't even write comments

I never WRITE comments as such, I extract previosuly used ones from Unixware and fit them into my code as best I can. I thought everyone did that...

Re:SCO code =Bad chop job?

[John Hasler]

> ...by what virtue can SCO claim that comments,
> which are not part of the actual operating code,
> form a more significant part of the source than
> the actual code?

The judge in the USL-BSD case ruled that similar or identical comments don't count since they are not functional. That precedent will count against SCO.

Re:SCO code =Bad chop job?

[Rorschach1]

Yeah, what's the GPL got to say on comments? Are they afforded the same protection as functional code? I put a lot of thought into my comments, on the rare occasions I write any. I once commented a project for a client entirely in haiku. No one ever said anything. /*
Comments in haiku
Not for any good reason
I was simply bored
*/

Re:SCO code =Bad chop job?

[thynk]

AFAIK, every developer worth his salt dates everything.

Except for members of the opposit sex.

What ever happened to "Real programers don't comment code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to read and even harder to fix."?

Re:SCO code =Bad chop job?

[JWSmythe]

I date every girl that'll say yes..

I stalk the rest.

I comment on all of it.. :)

15-Jun-2003 22:27 // Mary Jane was wild in bed tonight.

Re:SCO code =Bad chop job?

[TheRaven64]

I haven't seen the Linux code or the Sys V code, but I can categorically say that on the basis of my expert opinion that they are identical. Please go to my site now and click on all of the pretty banners.

That's all you need to get /.'ed now, right?

Line numbers please?

[Spazmania]

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.

Re:Line numbers please?

[MeanMF]

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.

From my understanding, if there was SCO code in there that somebody replaced, they would have had to do it without ANY access to the SCO code at all, in the same way companies like AMD did "clean room" reverse engineering jobs on Intel's chips once upon a time. If a Linux developer at IBM even had access to look at SCO-licensed code (let alone copying and pasting it), IBM would likely be in violation of their license. This is one of the reasons the kernel developers are recommending against signing the NDO to view SCO's code - once you've seen it and know SCO's supposed "trade secrets", you could very well be considered legally incapable of creating functionally equivalent, original code.

Re:Line numbers please?

[hobsonchoice]

The comment that dates were removed is interesting.

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"

My thoughts:

1. Perhaps, he doesn't give file names or line numbers: because he does NOT know what they are

2. Doesn't anybody find it the least bit odd, that a so-called expert, who is supposedly assessing the strength of SCO's evidence, is not shown the "raw" evidence, but some kind of presentation/summary/interpretation of it????

Re:Line numbers please?

[ender's_shadow]

Unlike you, I've actually followed this story for a while. It's obvious to me that there are thousands of people being ripped off by SCO (who is redistributing GPLed works absent the GPL). It doesn't matter which lines of code this coder wrote.

You have nothing against SCO. Hmmm. You don't have a problem with this company, whom Microsoft has a huge interest in now, spreading lies like "The GPL will kill your business! See what these Linux people are doing to us? They'll do it to you too!" You don't have a problem with them "trying on" an argument (fallacious at best - they do have lawyers, you know. probably more lawyers than coders), and in the process costing other companies money and time, and slowing down our already struggling economy, especially the IT sector, with frivolous claims and threats? Maybe you do need to see this guy's code. Straight logic certainly isn't working for you.

Re:Line numbers please?

[MeanMF]

SCO would still have to prove that your code is derived from theirs and you'd have an opportunity to disprove

From what I've read, they only have to prove access and "substantial similarity" to the copyrighted code. Clearly IBM had access, so the question is if the code is "substantially similar" whatever that means. Algorithms aren't copyrightable (you'd need a patent), but you'd need a legal way to obtain the algorithm like clean-room reverse engineering. Code fragments, structure (function names, etc), and organization are all copyrightable. There are exceptions to this, like when a code has to be structured or named a certain way to ensure compatibility. Since Linux and Unix kernels aren't meant to be compatible, this exception would be a non-starter for IBM. If IBM did in fact copy and paste code (including comments) into Linux, I would guess that this would easily pass the "substantially similar" test.

Re:Line numbers please?

[Spazmania]

He says that there were a lot of the same jokes in the comments. Any particular reason he can't grep the kernel source for those files and find the relevant sections?

Re:Line numbers please?

[Spazmania]

I want to see the code, because I'm interested in seeing whether there's any truth in the claim.

Exactly. That's why its important to know which portion of the code base is at issue. But more important than learning whether the claim is true is fixing it so that even if its true today it ceases to be true tomorrow. That's why its important to track the exact code at issue back to its source -- something I've zero confidence that SCO has accomplished.

I've nothing against SCO until such time as I can determine for myself whether or not they have a case, or if they are just trying it on.

I vehemently disagree with you there. Regardless of the merits of SCO's case, they're treating the entire Linux community as if we're some sort of villians. Worse, they've gone out of their way to prevent us from halting the very infringement they allege exists. That's horribly wrongheaded, and I hope they rot for it.

Re:Line numbers please?

[Spazmania]

It seems to me that this legal challenge puts SCO in somewhat of a box.

Its far nastier than that. The GPL insists that if the entire codebase isn't distributed under the GPL then none of it is. If SCO asserts that the GPL doesn't apply to the code in the kernel version of Linux they shipped is not under the GPL then they distributed the kernel without a valid license to do so. That makes them liable for damages to the thousands of authors who contributed code to the Linux kernel. If anyone ever registered one of the kernels with the copyright office then they're also liable for punitive damages to thousands of plaintiffs.

At this point, SCO's damned if they do and damned if they don't. They screwed up bad.

Re:Line numbers please?

[larry bagina]

... and why slashdot editors don't read slashdot.

Re:Line numbers please?

[TheRaven64]

If anyone ever registered one of the kernels with the copyright office then they're also liable for punitive damages to thousands of plaintiffs.

Why would they need to register it? In the UK (and several other countries) you own copyright on anything you create and choose to claim copyright on. Quite a few kernel developers are UK residents (including Alan), and since UK copyright is also valid in the US due to treaties they can sue SCO with no effort.

As previously seen on Slashdot...

[hendridm]

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.

The translation is quite okay.

[Heghta']

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.

Wow, already?

[Duncan3]

Slashdot, now with hourly SCO updates.

Re:Wow, already?

[Evil Pete]

Slashdot, now with hourly SCO updates

But it has to be that way 'cause that's how we now measure the lifetime of SCO.

Re:Wow, already?

[DickBreath]

Personally, I would prefer to be able to be paged whenever either Slashdot or Linux Today had an SCO update.

It's like a movie buildup. First you make the audience really hate the bad guy. Then the good guy wins.

This is the best entertainment I've seen in a long time. But it's real life and affects something I care about.

Puns

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to come out and speak in favor of the puns. They have been the best part of slashdot's coverage. Also, a running joke isn't funny if it doesn't reach the point of being stupid.

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 anonymous

Re:Puns

[timeOday]

Ah, this should come in awfully handy.

Re:Puns

[EvilAlien]

Maybe someone could make a SCO FUD story generator, so people can generate even more meaningless coverage of the has-been/never-was trashing itself to death! This sounds like a job for... BBspot!

Unfortunately, they've hardly taken advantage of the SCO comedy: SCO, the New Disease. I expected more.

The Trillian Project : Proof of SCO's actions

[Anonymous Coward]

The 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

Re:The Trillian Project : Proof of SCO's actions

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent article you linked to! I found this link from the article particularly interesting, in the context of the comments from the German fellow who saw SCO's "evidence" without signing the NDA. Here's a former SCO (now Intel) employee that worked on improving the Linux kernel for enterprise application (when he worked for SCO) talking about *scheduling* routines for *SMP* systems using Linux kernel 2.4.18.

Linus' stuff?

[jabbadabbadoo]

"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."

I'm pretty sure that Linus "wrote" this; this is kernel stuff, right?

Re:Linus' stuff?

[MrHanky]

Yes, Linus wrote the original scheduler, but the later modifications like O(1) are not his:

/*
* kernel/sched.c
*
* Kernel scheduler and related syscalls
*
* Copyright (C) 1991-2002 Linus Torvalds
*
* 1996-12-23 Modified by Dave Grothe to fix bugs in semaphores and
* make semaphores SMP safe
* 1998-11-19 Implemented schedule_timeout() and related stuff
* by Andrea Arcangeli
* 2002-01-04 New ultra-scalable O(1) scheduler by Ingo Molnar:
* hybrid priority-list and round-robin design with
* an array-switch method of distributing timeslices
* and per-CPU runqueues. Additional code by Davide
* Libenzi, Robert Love, and Rusty Russell.
*/

Mabe this is one of the comments that were identical?

Re:Linus' stuff?

[macshit]

What's interesting is that the scheduler seems one of the least likely places for such code-pollution to occur -- as one of the most central parts of the kernel, it's also one of the most scrutinized and well understood by many people.

I'm also under the impression that the `traditional' linux scheduler (before the rewrite by Ingo Molnar in 2.5) is one of the oldest parts of linux, predating any involvement by IBM or any other large company with access to SCO source. [but this is just my impression from reading the LKML, not based on any research!]

Because the mechanisms involved are fairly implementation-specific, it's also very unlikely that anyone could just copy a few random functions from SCO, unless they were very generic. Since SCO is by all accounts very old and crufty, it's unlikely you'd even want to.

By far the most likely place for copied code is in obscure device drivers that no one really looks at or understands very well besides the original author.

Of course what we really want to hear is the name of these functions! C'mon non-NDA guy, cough 'em up!

Re:Linus' stuff?

[msgmonkey]

Of course this is pure speculation and I'm no way implying that this is SCO's plan but if you wanted to claim ownership over a part of Linux than what better place to do it than the scheduler? Thats a core piece of code and not some driver or feature that you can turn off.

I do agree that it's so unlikely that it's not even worth considering..

Re:Linus' stuff?

[Minna Kirai]

Since a process scheduler is such a well studied piece of Computer Science theory, it might be that the code in both Linux and SCO's Unix is derived from the same published, academic source.

Something like an example from an Operating Systems 101 textbook... The natural starting place to write something like that. Both author's could've tossed in explanation from the same original source matter.

Also, the scheduler is part of what makes Unix what it is- a multitasking, process-switched operating system. If several people want to implement that feature, they'll all have a very similar thought pattern, and converge towards a similar solution.

Re:Linus' stuff?

[rampant mac]

"2002-01-04 New ultra-scalable O(1) scheduler by Ingo Molnar"

Hello, my name is Ingo Molnar. You stole my sched.c source code. Prepare to die.

Damn I'm lame.

Re:Linus' stuff?

[xenocide2]

Or more accurately, MINIX. When Linus started the kernel, there really wasn't an Operating Systems 101 textbook per se. There might have been a few books on high level concepts, but solid. My history of Operating Systems isn't quite solid, but my understanding is that the MINIX book had just been recently released (the project started in 87, so its fairly safe to assume the book was released around 89). Before MINIX there were no public operating system implementations. They were proprietary information that had to be guarded by at least an NDA. There was no HURD (and mostly still is no HURD ;); there was no BSD (they reimplemented UNIX in circa 1994).

If code was 'borrowed' in Linux from anywhere, its likely MINIX. I believe Torvalds states that there is no MINUX code within Linux anymore, which is easy to believe given the time span and advancements in technology.

Really, schedulers are easily made unique, despite solving a central problem. Its simple to pick a design goal and make progress toward it. I highly doubt that MINUX and sysV were somehow related identically in that reguard. MINUX is by all accounts a simple yet functional implementation of an OS. SysV is reputatably a complex yet efficient beast. It may be the case that the code is duplicated, that much the german post implicates. But who stole from who is suspect, given the removal of dates. It may in fact be the case that SCO doesn't want to disclose the infringing code because the man submitting the patch was a) not liscenced or b) very poor and not IBM.

Re:Linus' stuff?

[hanwen]

If you read the old history stuff, you'd notice that
Linus used Maurice J. Bach's "The Design of the UNIX Operating System." Perhaps the comments and functions were taken from that book?

You can see the code too !

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

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.

Re:You can see the code too !

[bitkid]

IIRC German law is much different about trade secrets than US law. Unless this person used illegal means to get access to that information, it is the responsibility of the company to protect their trade secrets. They can sue of course, but they are unlikely to win if it is their own damn fault. The lawyer (sounded like he is an external) who forgot to have him sign the NDA might be liable for damages, though.

(Usual disclaimer applies; IANAL and my law-classes were a while ago).

Re:You can see the code too !

[cdn-programmer]

Since clearly he is not a developer he did not understand what he was looking at and probably cannot remember it anyway. Hense the trade secrets have not been disclosed.

Someone else pointed out that a serious developer will not jeopardize his/her career by signing an NDA. Well said. Nevertheless there is another post where the idea that the NDE is rather meaningless is put forth. This is simply not true. When anyone signs an NDA they open them up to litigation. It is quite trivial to accuse someone of infringment by virtue of the fact that they signed an NDA.

As a developer I would urge any other developer follow two rules: (1) DON'T EVER SIGN AN NDA and (2) If someone tells you they have a secret or a good idea you might be interested in - tell them to KEEP IT TO THEMSELVES. Really, you do not want to know!

translation

[Tablizer]

"It lacks farfegnugen"

Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA

[Anonymous Coward]

More like SCOviet russia. After all, what better place for SCO to be than moSCOw?

what code?

[tijnbraun]

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.

Re:what code?

[lspd]

No doubt. Cite a damn file name and line numbers. Without it, this looks like a scam to get traffic.

What use are vague references to jokes in comments? Tell the line numbers so that we can know for certain whether or not the code being shown comes from a questionable source.

If this story is true and someone did see SCO's code without a NDA then they're wasting the chance they've been given to cite some concrete examples of what SCO is claiming.

Since the author elected to provide the same sort of wish-wash "proof" that SCO is handing out to the public, it's hard to imagine this isn't a scam.

Come on, how about some function names?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Why play by their rules?

[pen]

Why bother trying to prove that the code was acquired "legally" when they have not even shown publicly what the actual code is?

please

[dh003i]

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.

Re:please

[MeanMF]

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.

Legally speaking, I'm not so sure of that. The company I used to work for was recently involved in a lawsuit. A software company that sells a product that we bought the source code to over 20 years ago claimed that we were in violation of our license because we used our knowledge of their software to develop an RFP for a replacement system. There was no allegation of patent infringement or that we had created any kind of derivative product. Because this was clearly a rediculous interpretation of the law, we refused to settle. We ended up losing the case.

Who cares if IBM is in violation of SCO's license? That has nothing to do with IBM contributing to FOSS.

The current legal action being discussed here is SCO vs. IBM. SCO wants to revoke IBM's UNIX license because they claim IBM copied UNIX code into Linux. There has been no formal action taken by SCO against any Linux developers yet. If IBM did copy UNIX code into Linux, SCO will have an excellent case for back royalties, regardless of the good intentions of the kernel developers or whether the code is replaced in future versions.

Re:please

[John Hasler]

> The current legal action being discussed here is
> SCO vs. IBM. SCO wants to revoke IBM's UNIX
> license because they claim IBM copied UNIX code
> into Linux.

So far as I know SCO has not yet formally alleged copyright infringement in their complaint against IBM. I believe that the complaint just alleges that IBM breached its contract with SCO by revealing SCO's trade secrets.

Re:please

[csguy314]

Also, people are not computers. They will not remember lines and lines of code with any precision,

Hah! Speak for yourself. I've got the whole Linux scheduler memorized. I'm working on the character device drivers next. So there!...
sigh... I really need a girl.

O.J?

[DaBj]

Is it just me or is this starting to look like the nerd version of the O.J. trial?

(No lame glove references please.)

Re:O.J?

[bilbobuggins]

'If the code can compile you must go to trial'?

Re:O.J?

[BurritoWarrior]

(No lame glove references please.)

Fair enough.

"If our code's in it, you can't acquit".

"No SCO IP unless you pay the fee".

"Computers running stolen code will cost you another $50 per node".

UNIX and derivatives

[hobsonchoice]

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).

fud.msnbc.com

[yerricde]

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.

Novell's claim?

[datan]

Novell backs off copyright claims against SCO

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?

Summary

[utahjazz]

-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.

Exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

We should all deal with this in a rational, civilized, and above all capitalist manner.

Short sell SCO's stock instead.

Things that make you go "Hmmm... BULLSHIT!"

[Fished]

I find it interesting that this "independent" developer manages to talk at great length without actually describing the codee in sufficient detail that we could determine what it is. If someone competent had actually seen that code, and were discussing it without fear of NDA, would they not have described it in more detail? Just a function name is all that's really needed, neh?

Can somebody say "troll"? (Probably some teenage Windozer having a good laugh.)

SCO fsck yourself.

[Tokerat]

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...

Re:SCO fsck yourself.

[Tokerat]

Perhaps they'll be presenting more detailed evidence in court...or perhaps they're busy researching proper dates to fill their changelogs with?

The thing that gets me is the part about comments, including programmers' jokes, matching verbatim; yet the lines of code they where attached too where substantially different in most cases. Again, this could mean improper reverse-engeneering technique on the part of a Linux contributor (a simple open file and re-write the code as you go), but if this where true, wouldn't the comments be erased with the code you're attempting to emulate? Why would you leave the exact comments there? If you where re-writing the code, why would you type a line of code and then copy the comments from the old code but erase the code itself? The only possible answer is sabotage, and I wouldn't rule that out, either.

However, I'm thinking the popular /. theory is true: they'll be showing the courts things like

<DRAMATIZATION>

SCO lawyer: In this memory management function, a pointer must be incremented beyond the newly created memory block to the next availible free space. Observe our code:

*pointer = *pointer + length_of_new_block; // Set pointer to free space

...and now observe the Linux equivalent:

*next_free += block_len; // Set pointer to free space

...YOU SEE??!? Irrefutable evidence in our favor. The Linux kernel's code does the SAME EXACT THING, it was simply re-phrased to the computer by a clever little thieving Open Source programmer!

*Microsoft chuckles in the back of the courtroom audience*

Judge: Order! *pounds gavel*

SCOmbag lawyer: *ahem* Er... even the comments match. I rest my case.

</DRAMATIZATION>

Either way, I don't think SCO would have enough feet to shoot itself in if it was a centipede. Time will tell, but that might not be nessisary. ;-D
(PS: Pardon if my pointer arithmetic code isn't syntactically sound...it's been a long time since I've written any code D-: )

Re:Nice turnabout for SCO, but...

[cshark]

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?

Re:grep sco /usr/share/dict/words

[NoData]

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!

clueless or caseless

[73939133]

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.

Re:Nice turnabout for SCO, but...

[arkhan_jg]

Of course, using closed source apps in you business doesn't mean you are safe from lawsuits.

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.

SCO claiming another's kernel code

[john82]

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.

Re:SCO claiming another's kernel code

[mibus]

That's not what his letter said :-P

He doesn't know any more than any of us here about what was copied - he's saying he only licensed his code (which is probably totally seperate from any SCO "copied" code) for use under the GPL.

The GPL can't link to non-GPL code.

OpenLinux is(/was?) being distributed by SCO. OpenLinux has their (supposed) un-GPL'd code. Hence, he is asking for a cease-and-decist on them distributing his code and violating the license :-)

Re:SCO claiming another's kernel code

[budgenator]

chink in the armor, this is more like checkmate
consider this,
1. SCO distributed GPL'ed software, ie Linux
2. SCO claims that IBM Illegaly transfered IP into Linux.
3. SCO continues to distribute LINUX after allegedly discovery of non-GPLed code contamination Linux, a violation of the GPL and an infingement of the linux code copywrite owners rights.
4. the only possible defense against an infringement suit from the kernel developers would be to say they were mistake about IBM's inclusion of SCO's IP into Linux, and everything in their Linux distribution is properly GPL'ed to the best of their knowelge and belief.

Now the question becomes if the owners of system V unix found code in both Linux and SCO unix that were the same, where did the code code from?
possibilities
Linux copied SCO code into Linux
SCO copied Linux code into unix
both copied a third parties code into both (BSD maybe?)

Gutsfull

[donnz]

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.

Re:Gutsfull

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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).

They haven't, not one bit. It is just business for IBM. They made a business decision that making the OS a commodity would be good for them. They see it as a way to knock Microsoft off their revenue base and to similarly make the hundreds of millions if not billions invested in Solaris, HPUX, IRIX and even SCO as moot. Yeah, it hurts them in short run with the waste of their AIX development dollars, but AIX was always an also-ran in the unix space and IBM is a hardware and services company and Linux is the perfect complement to that business model.

But don't ever forget that IBM is first and foremost a ruthless, amoral business just as it has always been, Microsoft is, HP has become and Sun wants to be. If management decided that fighting linux instead of supporting it would benefit their corporate coffers, you can bet that IBM would turn on OSS in an instant.

GPL question

[XaXXon]

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?

Re:GPL question

[DarkMan]

In general, you are correct.

However, three matters apply here. Firstly, SCO claim that it is thier code, which means that if they are correct, it is not GPL. This complicates things, and I don't know USA law well enough to say what that means.

Secondly, SCO are not distributing the Linux code, but rather pointing to parts of that that have special relevence. They did not give out copies, but rather pointed to a single printout. Thus, no distribution was taking place.

Thirdly, and I think, strongest - Fair use rights. SCO cannot make a claim without replicating those parts of the code. The fair use exception applies, allowing them to quote 'reasonable parts' of the Linux code, to illustrate thier claim.

Note that the latter cut's both ways - if you were in possesion of SCO's source, you could calim fair use over quoting parts, specifically for the purpose of backing up or refuting thier claims.

I'm not liscenced to practice law in your juristriction - this is not legal advice. For legal advice, consult a local lawyer.

Re:mirror

[rusty spoon]

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."

Nonsense

[The Terminator]

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

Re:Great if thats true!

[Billly Gates]

From what I read here is that the code in question (the one thats over 60 lines) is from the early 80's and freely available. Sco's website download is unavailable, otherwise I would of hyperlinked it. IBM also own's a SysV license for AIX and has access to the source. IBM even has recent Unixware code from the failed Montery project.

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.

I Have To Agree With Some Points Made Here

[Master of Transhuman]

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.

Re:I Have To Agree With Some Points Made Here

[Per Cederberg]

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.

Well it actually makes sense if the code has a common ancestor. Remember that he also said that the functions had the same name and performed the same task.

It is then to be expected that the Linux code gets modified (scrutinized) over time, whereas the SCO code would either stay more close to the original or get modified in other ways. Either way, most programmers wouldn't change the old comments out of courtesy (if they are funny) or lack of interest.

SCO's real objection

[Mostly a lurker]

some of the jokes are the same on both sides

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.

Start d/l *BSD?

[hrbrmstr]

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.

Why are Lindon, Utah's streets lined with trees?

[Chyeburashka]

So IBM's lawyers can march in the shade!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Q: Who is Darl McBride's future roomy?
A: Samuel Waksal

SCO vs. IBM vs. [INSERT YOUR NAME HERE]

[oaf357]

ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Work station/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/linux-2.4.13-21D.src .rpm

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).

Can you remember 5 lines of code?

[Nucleon500]

I wonder if this guy, or anyone else who's seen the code, can remember any of it. If it were me, I'd wait until I saw the big function, commit to memory 5 lines of it, and as soon as I got home, I'd have grepped the source for it. I couldn't legally tell anyone else what code it was, but in about 5 minutes I could determine whether or not SCO was full of shit.

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.

Why doesn't someone look through the CVS logs?

[mveloso]

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?

Here's my attempt

[zogger]

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.

Where on earth did they get. . .

[kfg]

a 199 million dollar coffeepot?

KFG

Re:Where on earth did they get. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. Air Force?

English translation (by hand)

[rjamestaylor]

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

www.sco.com is running Linux!

[thetamind_pyros]

From NetCraft: Recent Changes at Notable Sites:

One site that has not changed is www.sco.com, where people continue to delight in the irony of SCO using the operating system whose deployment they are seeking to restrict.

The SCO website is running Linux! How ironic!

Did you read the same link I did?

[roystgnr]

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).

The new information we have is...

[leonbrooks]

...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.

There's no such 60-line function in the scheduler!

[Anonymous Coward]

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 ...

Seconded! (-:

[leonbrooks]

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.

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?

Re: Mine isn't.

[E_elven]

*sigh*

Re:my /usr/share/dict/words is bigger !

[NoData]

you must feel very manly. you clearly have the bigger dict.

Re:Punctuation

[rnturn]

As I understand it, ``SCO'' is no longer an acronym meaning S anta C ruz O peration but a made-up word -- like ``Agilent'' and others, I guess -- that's pronounced ``skoe''. That would explain the lack of periods. I heard that they initially fought the pronunciation thing but eventually decided to quit while they were ahead. (Pity they can't see the light in this lawsuit, eh?)

Comments from POSIX

[minkwe]

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.

How could SCO prove anteriority ?

[file-exists-p]

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.

My view of the original german text...

[cdemon6]

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!

I apologize in advance for this one...

[gosand]

15-Jun-2003 22:27 // Mary Jane was wild in bed tonight.

16-Jun-2003 11:05 // Took Mary Jane to the vet for her annual check-up. I hope the doc can't tell.

Speaking of remarkable similarities...

[stuffduff]

Did anyone compare the google and altavista translations? ;^)

Putting the cart before the horse

[tuxathon]

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.