Slashdot Mirror
SCO Berates Linus' Approach To Kernel Contributions
Matthias_305 writes "The New York Times has an article about a new court document in which SCO critizes Linus Torvalds touting the 'inability and/or unwillingness of the Linux process manager, Linus Torvalds, to identify the intellectual property origins of contributed source code.' They claim to have got evidence from a conversation on the kernel mailing list in which Torvalds advocates programmers shouldn't care about patents. According to the article he stands by his view which is at least 'candid'." On a related note, BobDowling points to a proposal at The Inquirer ("Shutting down SCO's FUD machine") regarding SCO's claims. "SCO won't let people see the contested source code without signing an outrageous NDA but the article gives a mechanism for publishing appropriate MD5 checksums which allow code trees to be compared without anyone else seeing the code. This is offered as a means to locate the source of SCO's contested code. ... This mechanism gives a concrete procedure that SCO can be challenged to follow as part of the community's "put up or shut up" response. There would be no threat to SCO's claimed IPR."
free link
Also, Linus was advising developers that they don't look at patents, for if the kernel is hit by one of them (some are pretty broad), it would be much more trouble if the alleged patent infringement were done knowingly.
I suppose this is a reasonable tactic used by everyone, yet one can criticize it if he like.
I used to work in pharma research. The patent lawyers used to tell us not to worry about patents until close to the end of our research. And then let the lawyers look at patents.
The reason for this is that patents are complicated and claims are not easy to understand. For instance some chemical/protein/DNA/whatever could be patented for a very specific use (it normally is). You can still use it for a totally different reason.
So from my own experience I can see that Linus attitude is perfectly correct.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
GeekButtons.com has put this together , SCO Sucks" button
I think (unless I misread it) that there's a flaw in the shredding mechanism -- the grouping into clusters of 5 lines before computing the md5 checksum means that if there is identical code in two files, but the positions of the code in the files is shifted by a line, they won't match.
For example:
File 1 contains lines A B C D E.
File 2 contains Q A B C D E W X Y Z.
The first MD5 generated from file 1 would be for A B C D E. The first MD5 generated from file 2 would be for Q A B C D, followed by E W X Y Z. So even though the the lines A B C D E are duplicated between the two files, there's no 'match' according to the MD5's. This means that you could duplicate a 100K line file, with a comment at the top, and nothing would match.
So the output of this script, while interesting, wouldn't allow anyone to make precise statements about how the files compared.
The idea of clustering is good (matching individual lines would have too much noise) but perhaps the MD5's could be computed for every line as the start of a cluster of 5 lines? That way the offset wouldn't break the comparison...
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
of course Linus is going to have little regard for software patents. He's a European and that's one bit of stupidity we have yet to import from the US (please God we never do).
Emphasis on the "yet".
Have a look at this European Commission proposal to make all useful ideas patentable
Here's the relevant section:
*SNIP*
"I do not look up any patents on principle because (a) it's a horrible waste of time and (b) I don't want to know."
"The fact is technical people are better off not looking at patents. If you don't know what they cover and where they are, you won't be knowingly infringing on them," Mr. Torvalds wrote in the e-mail message last August.
In an e-mail interview earlier this month, Mr. Torvalds explained that his was a candid view in the murky, complex realm of software patents these days.
"Hey, one of the advantages of not personally being involved in any of the commercial Linux players is that I can be honest," Mr. Torvalds wrote. "In fact, openness pretty much requires it â" there is no corporate speak here. Ask any lawyer in a tech company (off the record, so that he can be honest too), and he'll tell you that engineers should absolutely not try to look up other people's patents. It's not their job, and you don't want them tainted."
What's so terrible about that? Why would you bias yourself (and waste a LOT of time) by poring over someone's code before writing your own? You may subconsciously emulate what they've done, and taint any originality you might have started with.
Same thing goes for other disciplines. In medicine, one should talk to the patient first, THEN read their medical records... you want an honest gestalt, unbiased by somebody else's interpretation of signs and symptoms. Isn't that what a second opinion is supposed to be?
This sounds to me like the old "better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" philosophy. Big whoop... give linus a break, SCO.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Actually, I've been told exactly the same thing by a number of US patent lawyers. In the US you're liable for greater damages if you violate someone else's patent if you know about it than if you don't. So the last thing any engineer should ever do is admit publicly that they know anything about any patent, because they open their employer up to (IIRC) treble damages. Given how well known this is, I am surprised that it's "news".
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
The scheme instead computes an MD5 sum for each line (actually each five lines together) and publishes the hashed versions of the files. Then anybody can do the line by line compare without ever seeing a readable version of the source code.
The theory is that SCO can't complain about somebody distributing these hashes because you can't get the source code from it.
The only problem I see is that the hashes are still derived from SCO's intellectual property and are therefore still covered by copyright. SCO could still put up a stink about it. Especially since they have stated that their goal is to sue IBM for money rather than to identify the peices and rectify the situation. SCO has said that they are afraid that if the lines are known, the problem will be fixed and they won't be able to sue any more. (Poor babies.)
SCO bought the source code and license rights to Unix in 1995
I thought they bought a license to the source code and license rights to the code, but not ownership of the source, and that Novell owns the code
So this article is not entirely accurate
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10061
It's nice to see that Linus is getting a bit more riled up about SCO now that SCO has started taking personal potshots at him. In a recent interview:
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
What the courts want is a probable cause. MD5 would do just fine.
BOO! TERRO
Learn the difference between a patent and a copyright. Source code is copyrighted. Processes for doing things are patented. A copyright prevents a code copy. A patent prevents the implementation of an idea. I think you will find large percentages of open source advocates will agree that ideas should be freely exchanged. And many also believe code should be freely exchanged (see BSD style licenses).
As all hashes go, and I know, it's mathimatically "very hard", two different byte segments CAN have the same md5 sum. Longer they get, harder it is...
Uhh, well, the probability that a given line of code has a certain MD5 checksum is 1 to 340282366920938463463374607431768211456.
That's way less probable than the probability of a false positive in a DNA test. (I.e. "Good enough" for a match)
So, unless I see a two headed guy with dark sunglasses, climb into his shiny spaceship and start it's engines, I belive SCO could very well use this technique to demonstrate what part of their code is in Linux.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
If SCO tries to make this case at trial, they're gonna get reamed when IBM inquires into their patent clearance process.
Nobody can afford to do prior patent clearance. All engineering work would stop dead if we did.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Well no, his position is more subtle than that. Patent law is based on knowing infringement. By not looking at patents, one cannot knowlingly infringe on a patent. As he points out, this is why engineers should not look at patents.
Linus then goes on to state that the *open* publication process is the best defense. How could Linus or anyone else possibly be aware of all patents? By openly publishing the code and its source, Linus notes that it is possible to back trace to the true "offenders". Linus could have been named as a co-party to the suit. Note that he is not. In a recent interview with CNET, Darl McBride even seemed to agree with Linus' point by stating that having thousands of eyes, open source led to better quality. Well, those eyes might lead to better IP protection too.
SCO's statements just strike me as a tactic to impugn Linus and the whole OS process without going to the mat where they would not have a case. It casts further doubts on SCO's motives.
So it's patents now? SCO don't have any patents that are relevant. If they did, they would have included reference to them in their lawsuit. This is premium-quality BS. The "issue" that SCO has is that IBM and other UNIX licensees have been GPL-ing and submitting stuff that SCO claims is their intellectual property. If this is what has been happening, that cannot be Torvalds' fault. The fault (if any) lies with the submitters. It's not unreasonable for Torvalds to assume that if a patch comes from IBM that IBM has the right to submit it.
Essentially, what SCO is now saying is that if you license UNIX, any ideas that you (perfectly legally) incorporate into your version of Unix belong to SCO, because... well because of course, you couldn't have created it without SCO's huge contribution. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call "shenanigans" at this point.
Incidentally, I would point to this link, where the FSF argue that the term "intellectual property" is not useful - because it can be used by disreputable organizations (like SCO for example) to confuse matters relating to copyright, patents, trade secrets etc.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
I do believe the GNU Project created the GPL.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Copyright 1989, predating Linux by a significant time period.
I was about to say the same thing. Glad I seached first. If it identifies a piece of code with the same hash, then you've got the very piece of code that SCO is trying to keep secret. So, you're asking them to publish their code if there is an exact match.
Sounds like SCO is going to reject this one.
The MD5 sums will only match if the lines are identicaly.
Change 8 spaces to a tab? MD5 mismatch.
Change indentation? MD5 mismatch.
Add a comment? MD5 mismatch.
Rename a variable from i to counter? MD5 mismatch.
Rename a function from calculatechecksum to CalculateChecksum? MD5 mismatch.
I don't think we should be spending time thinking of ways to adhere to SCO's ridiculous claims. If they say the code is already published in the Linux kernel, how can any further damage happen if they publish it again? This is beyond ridiculous.
OK, I smell troll, but I'll bite anyways:
Richard Stallman created the GPL in the late 1980's after Gosling forked EMACS and made his version proprietary. Linus didn't start working on his Minix workalike until several years later.
Mr. Torvalds retains ownership and copyright of the code he wrote (check the AUTHORS file; in addition, several files contain "copyright [whatever year] Linus Torvalds"). To my knowledge, the other Linux programmers all retained copyright to their code as well. The fact that they have adopted a particular distribution license scheme does not change this fact.
For example, you could not take part of the Linux kernel and publish it claiming you wrote it (for that matter, you can't even do that with BSD). And, if you decide to fork the kernel and start making your own changes, you can't call it Linux (which is a trademark of Linus Torvalds).
IHBT. IHL. HAND.
All's true that is mistrusted
linux/fs/ext2/balloc.c
The block allocator that is part of ext2. GPL source, in the non-free directory of FreeBSD.
Hmm. Has anyone tried to disassemble the Linux Kernel Personality of Unixware? It supports ext2, and AFAIK there is no free (as in beer) ext2 implementation.
Per your request, a translation (or, 724/\/514710/\/, as you so h8x0r-ly stated):
If I were a Chief Information Officer [CIO] or Chief Technology Officer [CTO] debating the Total Cost of Ownership [TCO] of Unix/Linux [*nix] versus [vs.] Windows, 2003 [Win2K3] to a Chief Executive Officer [CEO], would International Business Machines [IBM] versus [vs.] Scumbag-Cocksucker Organization [SCO] be the Techical Knock-Out [TKO] that stops the Chief Information Officer [CEO] from approving Accounts Payable [A/P] to pay my Purchase Order [PO] for RedHat's [RH's] Linux/Gnu/*nix [LGX]?
For what it's worth [FWIW], even if Open-Source Software [OSS] is Free As in Beer [FAIB], if the Department of Justice [DOJ] considers Linux/Unix [*nix] Intellectual Property [IP] with a TradeMark [TM], then it basically become's Suckshit-Cockhole-OralJammer's [SCO's] Licensed Internal Code [LIC], meaning our Open Source Software [OSS] becomes a Closed Source Software [CSS] Operating System [OS], which would Really Suck the Big One [RSTBO].
Am I Better Off [AIBO] going w/ an Application Service Provider [ASP] that manages our Operating System [OS]? By that Account [BTA], we might end up w/ a Bastard Operator From Hell [BOFH] giving us Zero Administration [ZA], which Would Without a Doubt [WWAD] Pretty Much Suck [PMS].
As Far As I Know [AFAIK], Its Not My Problem [INMP] if Scrotum-Crushing-Orangatans [SCO] wants to be In the Money [ITM] by enforcing its supposed Intellectual Property Rights [IPR] - Linux/Unix [*nix] Intellectual Property [IP] should be Public Domain [PD] or Gnu's Not Unix [GNU], like Berkeley's Software Distribution [BSD] just on General Principle [GP], If You Know What I Mean [IYKWIM]. I keep asking myself in this situation - What Would Linus Do [WWLD]?
Oh, By the Way [BTW] - If I Tell You What It Means, Will You Buy Me a Drink [IITYWIMWYBMAD]?
I belive SCO could very well use this technique to demonstrate what part of their code is in Linux. :(, what I did was checking for comments that are dupes within the linux kernel tree,(earlier post), since the information that the comments were dupes in linux/sco tree. I was thinking that if the alleged dupes had bsd origin, that might be the code in question. So comparing comments in Linux and BSD might be a good idea, or maybe not?
I liked the idea (anonymous coder with access to source can use this technic)in the article.
The question is, can they? Would they be in trouble?
It would be nice if one could conclude where the said code was, without the sources...but it cant be done
I tried to get an slashdot account on slashdot with fairly pro-M$ posts, I had great karma.
If I open a bit of code, add a space, change a comment, and then submit it, the MD5 Checksum will be wildly different than the original. Assuming that the original was code I stole, there would be no protection for SCO (or anyone else for that matter). Heck, even opening and saving will modify the code (as my editor's settings automatically convert all tabs to spaces)
I can't imagine that SCO doesn't know their "solution" is flawed, but I can imagine that they really don't care. I mean, an MD5 checksum of even their alledgedly "stolen" code would still differ, since they have stated that the files "contain" their code and are not their files outright).
MD5 checksums per line? Won't work. Too many lines creating false positives (Anyone hold the rights to a line containing only ""? how about "/*"?) MD5 checksums per function / block / class / 20 lines? Still won't work. One quick pass through a code formatter, and all bets on a match are off.
Of course, this isn't the only "broken" idea that will be thrown overboard as the SCO ship sinks, but Heaven help me, they can't sink fast enough.
SCO seems to think it is up to Linus to make sure that he puts no patented software into linux. But is it up to Linus to check the patent library or is it up to the patent holder to make sure no one is violating their patent? If you don't enforce your patent do you loose it? Shouldn't the companies be the ones that are searching through the kernel trying to see if there is a problem? This is a legal question and I am not sure what the answer is.
Also it is obvious that SCO is not interested in protecting their property they are insterested in making money off of it. If they tell Linus the parts of the code that violate their patent then I am sure in the next version of Linux those parts will be removed. SCO doesn't want to tell us the parts of the kernel with the problems now so they can sue us later for damages.
You are not supposed to be able to patent something that is obvious to an engineer working in the field. If an open source developer comes up with the same idea independently then wouldn't that be a good arguement that your idea was obvious and then you wouldn't be able to patent it?
Fair use has four tests, the most important of which is the affect on the market value. Publishing the checksums probably increase the market value, since they are a conscious effort to prevent infringement. Another factor in fair use is the quantity of original work that is copied. Since md5 isn't invertible, this is zero. Another test is the purpose: commercial or non-profit. The checksums here are not designed to profit from somebody else's work, they are designed to protect against such profiting. The final test is the nature of the material used: Here it is solely to prevent or identify infringement.
I think it is almost a no brainer that a checksum lookup would be "fair use".
The problem is that suppose in files X and Y there is a checksum match at lines n and m respectively? You can't say anything more than that the lines match. X could have copied from Y, Y from X, or both could duplicate some other source Z.
Don't do it. If you sign their onerous NDA, you may be "in the know", but you will be "held accountable" for anytjhing you say or write, and could be forced to testify on their behalf, and even muted in what you CAN say at that point.
That is what is wrong with their NDA. You cannot tell the truth if you do sign the NDA, or work on code anymore, or develop anymore without having given them control over you. Why on Earth would anybody want these people to gain control? They are complete loonies anyway. They probably have the support of the RIAA, Senator Orin "Booby" Hatch and others of that ilk. we know that Microsoft supports them, and at least one other "as yet unnamed" vendor.
We all know that they cannot stand freedom or innovation, because they don't own you anymore. That is what is wrong with their arguments.
Imagine a future where the public domain does not exist. Where no product is ever allowed to be "public", where owning a book is illegal until you pay for it every time you read its pages, where you can't own a pen and toilet paper because you *might* write something and you have a vision of what it is these people really are all about.
They hate humanity and our ability to think and reason and invent. They just want consumers of the garbage culture they purvey. Not me pal, I can think and write for myself, and every idea in Unix, Linux, and other Operating Systems did not descend down these stock-shysters precious "source-tree of invisibility".
Never, ever, sign an agreement with them unless you enjoy being in a lwasuit. They cannot be trusted, and you'll only pay for it in terms of your job, livelihood and reputation.
Think about it, honestly. I mean you no harm and only mean to advise you against signing this thing as a concerned human being who wants you not to be harmed.
All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
I don't. The core development team for Linux may be smaller, tho I doubt it. Also, the core Linux developers are by all accounts (and from reading lkml for years) some of the best programmers/debuggers on earth, paid or unpaid. They are good team members, and their skills complement each other naturally.
Also, Linux has x million testers who have access to the source. Some percentage of them are able to code. A larger percentage of them are able to submit coherent bug reports and test fixes, since they have access to the latest code at all times.
If you have never built a team and tried to run it, you wont appreciate this one. But I have, and I do. They are stunningly effective and efficent.
andy
amd7930.c
A couple of points. *If* this appears in SCO source, this would be very strange. The 7930 is ONLY used in some 4c and 4m Sparcs. That would be 32 bit SPARC, SBUS based machines. I don't even think these are SUPPORTED by recent Solaris releases.
Nobody uses this for Intel, and these machines are not current anymore.
If SCO has this in THEIR code base, they are really smoking some strange drugs... The only reason this is in Linux is because it was ported to old SUN boxen. Trust me, IBM wouldn't have ANY involvement with that.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Simply put, he's right. There are more talented individuals in the FOSS community than in every software company in the world. Let's see, one guy creates an OS kernel by himself -- without an entire development team -- that evolves to be better than anything MS or proprietary UNIX vendors crank out. Another guy creates what is arguably the best compiler in the world. Etc.
Then, of course, just consider the sheer amount of talent. There are probably more FOSS programmers than proprietary programmers...by a long shot. That means that there is a huge amount of total talent.
Companies should also not bother with the impossible burden of finding all patents that they may be infringing on. The legal bill to lawyers to interpret patents would be outrageous, and it is simply impossible -- period -- to do, due to the clear lack of organization in freely available patent databases and due to the sheer number of patents.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Apologies if this a redundant comment, but did anyone think it strange that the word "kernel" is spelled as "kernal" thoughout this entire article?
Methinks the NYT is in big trouble these days if they can't even be bothered to proof-read their articles.
Now, as to talent ... that's something that we can only objectively measure by the results. It seems to me that the linux kernel surpasses the competitors, and that's why most of the "competition" have supported linux development.
This includes SCO in times past.
So it may not be a lie to say that the Linux Kernel development team has the greatest amount of programmer talent on the planet, as far as OS kernel development is concerned.
Sure, IBM, Sun and Microsoft may have thousands of programmers working for them. This has nothing to do with OS kernel development. Most of Microsofts' programmers are NOT working on their kernels. Ditto Sun. Ditto IBM. Ditto Apple.
And we can't count those who do testing, unless we also count those who do testing of the linux kernel, in which case the linux kernel wins hands down over all the proprietary kernels combined.
Well, there was someone posting on the last SCO article that said he had been a member of the NT kernel perf team (3 people) and he thought the entire kernel had a total of 50 developers.
Sure, that doesn't make grandparent poster correct, but it's not like the NT Kernel has 10,000 developers.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Actually, and I've been on the unfortunate business end of this (and lost not because of the merits of his claims against me, but simply lost because he was personally a multi-millionaire, and I had a total of $50 to my name at the time he sued me), one MUST register with the USCO before you can take legal action upon a Copyright. You do NOT have to have pre-registered with USCO beforehand to make the Copyright -exist-... but you cannot sue someone for copyright infringement until after you have registered with USCO.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
- Darl C. McBride - President and Chief Executive Officer
- Robert K. Bench - Chief Financial Officer
- Sean Wilson - Senior Vice President, Corporate Development
- Jeff Hunsaker - Senior Vice President, Worldwide Marketing
- Chris Sontag - Senior Vice President and General Manager, SCOsource Division
- Opinder Bawa - Senior Vice President, Engineering and Global Services
- Reg Broughton - Senior Vice President, Worldwide Operations
- Larry Gasparro - Senior Vice President, North America Sales
Each has a bio page, but no email address."Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
Research a little further into the personalities behind SCO, and you'll find a very committed group of opportunists that have run this scam before, and won. Read this backgrounder at Forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/18/cz_dl_0618linux.h tml
Furthermore, his statements about patents have no bearing on the lawsuit as SCO never claimed any patent infringement -- only stolen code (which is a copyright claim).
It's a little more subtle than this. SCO isn't even calling it a copyright infringement; they are suing for breach of contract. Part of the breach of contract claims IBM used parts of System V (which SCO claims as their own) in beefing up Linux.
Now, which parts? Apperantly, SCO claims that one specific area of infringement is in the RCU code, which removes a major bottleneck for >4 CPU machines. Sequent "invented" the RCU algorithm; Sequent was later purchased by IBM.
So how does this constitute breach of contract? SCO claims that the Unix contract signed by IBM (and, in fact, by every Unix signee) includes provisions for SCO to claim all derivitive works.
This is the crux; SCO has stated (through its top administrators) that all modern operating systems are merely derived works; they have hinted this includes MS-Windows, and they also want to re-visit the BSD decision.
This is patently rediculous. (Excuse the pun. Couldn't resist.) But, if SCO succeeds in their assault on IBM, they will have a case against every other Unix provider, and against Linux. They will probably have no case against Microsoft (who would most likely pay SCO off anyway, rather than face more bad publicity) or BSD, but that wouldn't stop them from trying with their new-found booty.
This is shares some attributes of the British Telecom case against (Compuserve? Prodigy? Don't remember off the top of my head), based on the scope of the claims. BT wanted to own the Internet; SCO wants to own every OS. The greatness of their chutzpah is stunning.
These guys must have Epcot-sized testicles.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I just read this in Linux Format (An UK magazine) ..
.....
It is at the end of the article titled "Who is SCO's next target?" on pages 6 and 7
"Former SCO developer Christoph Hellwig said the possibility of 'retrofitting' Unixware code into linux was remote as the kernel internals were so different. 'It might be more interesting to look for stolen linux code in Unixware, I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux filesystem in the Linux compat addon product for Unixware' he wrote.
so I wonder.. have SCO copied GPL code into their proprietry code? Maybe the developers of the filesystem code should request that SCO cease and desist all distribution of the code along with all copies with existing customers... A taste of their own medicine for once...
Mark.
---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
SCO management has been selling stock lately (June 5 - June 11). Look here for details.
This comes after almost two months of no insider trades.
I found the thread that they're citing.
:)
:)
In the mlist.linux.kernel From 02-Aug-2002 to 12-Aug-2002
The conversation isn't about SCO at all. The conversation started about virtual memory, and some SGI patents.
Linus' comment was to the effect that it's a waste of time for programmers ("technical people"). It's very likely someone has patented any idea you can come up with. Even if we see the patent, we aren't qualified to judge if it effects us. That's the legal department(s) problem (or your lawyer, or whoever). IANAL. LINAL (Linus is not a lawyer), but a lawyer would be more than happy to tell you that they understand the law better than us technical people.
Think of the recent stories on here about tabbed browsing, hyperlinks, and the one-click purchase. Read the full thread to get it in context, rather than a couple lines thrown in a news story. I doubt that I've written anything that hasn't been patented before, even though I stick (c) on all my code.
BTW, the filters on here really suck. I've been trying to post this message, but have been hitting filters all over the place. The current one I'm hitting is "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 33.3).", so I'm just filling in some space here to get it to post, without changing any of the quoted material. {sigh}
Now for the real messages (quoted directly from dejanews).
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x- x- x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
From: Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Subject: Re: large page patch (fwd) (fwd)
Date: 2002-08-11 16:42:30 PST
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> It goes on in this vein. I suggest all vm hackers have a close look at
> this. Yes, it's stupid, but we can't just ignore it.
Actually, we can, and I will.
I do not look up any patents on _principle_, because (a) it's a horrible
waste of time and (b) I don't want to know.
The fact is, technical people are better off not looking at patents. If
you don't know what they cover and where they are, you won't be knowingly
infringing on them. If somebody sues you, you change the algorithm or you
just hire a hit-man to whack the stupid git.
Linus
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x- x- x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
From: Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Subject: Re: large page patch (fwd) (fwd)
Date: 2002-08-11 16:44:17 PST
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> If somebody sues you, you change the algorithm or you just hire a
> hit-man to whack the stupid git.
Btw, I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect this may not be legally tenable
advice. Whatever. I refuse to bother with the crap.
Linus
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x- x- x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
From: Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Subject: Re: large page patch (fwd) (fwd)
Date: 2002-08-11 19:22:06 PST
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> This issue is more complicated than you might think.
No, it's not. You miss the point.
> Big companies with
> big pockets are very nervous about being too clo
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.