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
Man, I had thought that SCO was losing it.. but this shows that they have totally and completly lost their minds. they are criticizing linus torvalds for not being keen on intellectual property rights when he is one of the biggest proponents of open source?? What is the world coming to?
I have no regrets, this is the only path.
My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
GO LINUS, GO!
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).
I'm surprised SCO hasn't tried to persuade Linus to support them. "Join me my son!". ;-)
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
...that they really are working themselves up to sue Linus personally, perhaps for negligence, and will likely due so if their extortion demands continue not to be met. They really have a scortched earth anything goes mentality there.
Well if the SCO group had ANY technical knowledge in their company I might care. However I rank their comments below pond scum's. Heck even Microsoft knows more than the SCO group.
'inability and/or unwillingness of the Linux process manager, Linus Torvalds, to identify the intellectual property origins of contributed source code.'
Seems they want to bully Linus to present the evidence for their cause they failed to present. This seems at least irrational to me.
SCO's approach seems to scare everyone that Linux is illegal dynamite, waiting to blow a hole through their purses. If they're really concerned and ethical, should they not go upfront and declare the violations in the code and be done with it?
Secondly, what if someone had poisoned the code over a period and SCO's blowing the whistle now? Something like the tcpdump files getting infected with a trojan?
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Did anyone RTFA, Linus' comments struck me at first, until I realized that having engineers trying to be patent lawyers just makes the situation worse. However the quotes are quite bloody loaded and could do substantial harm.
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.
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... but then again, anything is possible.. just not probable.
--
"I'm not bright. Big words confuse me. But Wanda loves me and that should be enough for you." - Cosmo
So, he added, if there are intellectual property transgressions, they are easier to track. ...and community will replace it, when you told them where is it. But SCO wants nothing but sue.
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
We need a special SCO icon; something that looks Darth Vaderish. Either that, or make it look like Lionel Hutz.
Don't worry... At this point I'm waiting to see when they'll start a sco.slashdot.org section here... :-P
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.
you can always disable SCO stories if it annoys you.
You'd want Linus to compare both codes and after that sue him for "inspiration"?
Look, Linux, you've seen all SCO code, now don't say you weren't influenced by it. As we said earlier, it is technologically impossible for anyone to produce great code without copying it from us.
They're shooting themselves in the foot, and remove their shoes beforehand!
Mr. Torvalds developed the software engine, or kernal, blah blah blah
:)
Maybe we should ask Mister Steve Lohr to become a slashdot editor
Sig you!
then perhaps we could avoid dupes.
I was getting worried. It had been almost a whole 24 hours without an SCO update. If it reached a full day I don't know what I would have done.
It is the responsibility of copyright holders to find violations and defend their own hold on ideas. It is not the responsibility of everyone else to police their claim. If someone, like the moderator of an open source software development community, is notified that they are directly or indirectly violating such claims, then they have they will have to remove the proveably unsanctioned content, but that is not a blank check to stop others from speaking or sharing ideas. Until a law is passed to actively restrict all communications on the basis of "defending" the rights of copyright holders, then I'd understand such accusations - but otherwise, I can't imagine how Linus could have done anything wrong here.
Perhaps it's the ones who complain about their rights the loudest/with the most money that may end up getting their way. But here, unlike many copyright cases, you can expect everyone present to stand up for their rights, loudly. Unfortunately for SCO, it appears that IBM and many other powerful companies are in favor of Linus' and other's rights.
Ryan Fenton
I guess SCO figured out IBM is not going to buy them out
So they are going to be trying the same trick on some other companies, pumping up their stock along the way
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!
Commander Taco should consider renaming this place.
After they defeat Linus, they can come out with their new "Black Hat" (or "Black Helmet") Linux.
As I understand it, the lawsuit is about IBM contributing code to Linux that SCO claims it owned the rights to, and which they didn't have the right to distribute. There was no way Linus or anyone else who didn't have access to IBM's contracts with SCO, could determine that. In any event, the case certainly doesn't seem to have anything to do with patents.
One can only draw the conclusion that they're throwing mud in the hope that some will stick.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
SCO isn't a software company anymore. They have descended into purely a lawsuit driven enterprise. Everything they say these days has a single consideration. How dose it affect the court case?
This sort of criticism therefore isn't the same as what you get from a dissatisfied user or even a disgruntled competitor.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
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.
He's extremely patient and reasonable, which about sums up SCO's most obvious deficiencies, and not at all greedy for either money or attention, which apparently sums up SCO's entire motivation (or more specifically, D'ohl's entire motivation). Is it any wonder that they're jealous of him?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
No, it is not just you. I don't think that MicroSucks would even stoop to a level of condemning someone for what they invented which they currently sell. You never hear about how Microsoft condemns everyone that ever sold them software, now do you?
I have no regrets, this is the only path.
My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
A point seems of major importance and I have not seen it addressed so far. In such a situation, how could SCO prove they did not steal a part of the linux kernel ? Is there an official organism in the US where companies can register source code for future legal problems ? If not, how is that supposed to work ? Experts would look around at SCO's and get convinced (or not) by the internal memos and CVS logs ? I know we are talking about the US legal system, but that's totally surrealistic to me ...
What I don't understand about the SCO/IBM case, is why IBM isn't taking action to immediately stop SCO from doing what they are doing. I am sure it must be affecting their AIX business, and I can't believe that there isn't a legal method they can use to take some kind of cease and desist out on SCO.
If such a law doesn't exist in the USA, does that mean Pepsi can say they have proof that Coke has dog poo in it, but they aren't going to show the proof? I doubt it somehow.
Furthermore, if SCO are doing these things just to manipulate their share price, and the allegations turn out to be baseless, surely that is fraud?
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
I have not seen any post from any SCO people standing up for or against anything lately. Can SCO management legally gag their employees during this litigation? Not trolling or stirring, just deafen by the silence.
SCO seems to be trying to pull the strings of the Linux community, hoping for an irrational response. The more of an uproar, the more news coverage, the better the situation for SCO.
Everyone needs to take a deep breath. We all know what they are trying to do. We need to just turn the other cheek and let IBM deal with it. SCO is now threatening IBM's bread and butter. It will be over soon. I doubt IBM would drag this out in the courts, because this type of FUD would continue to be spouted off throughout that entire time. If IBM comes up with a solidified argument demonstrating that SCO was near perjury with this lawsuit, its all over.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10061
I told you those Linux zealots would try to hide the SCO stuff if we identified it!
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
They're shooting themselves in the foot, and remove their shoes beforehand!
:-D
Now, if we're really lucky we can get them to shove their foot in their mouth first too!
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
America is so over!
Back to Finland, Baby! Where there are still reasonable legal structures in place, and the rule of law is still bigger than the U.S. Dollar.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
If I were a CIO or CTO debating the TCO of *nix vs. Win2K3 to a CEO, would IBM vs. SCO be the TKO that stops the CEO from approving A/P to pay my PO for RH's LGX?
FWIW, even if OSS is FAIB, if the DOJ considers *nix IP with a TM, then it basically become's SCO's LIC, meaning our OSS becomes a CSS OS, which would RSTBO.
AIBO going w/ an ASP that manages our OS? BTA, we might end up w/ a BOFH giving us ZA, which WWAD PMS.
AFAIK, INMP if SCO wants to be ITM by enforcing its supposed IPR - *nix IP should be PD or GNU, like BSD just on GP, IYKWIM. I keep asking myself in this situation - WWLD?
Oh, BTW - IITYWIMWYBMAD?
Two words:
CHEWBACCA DEFENCE
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
Yep, I'd say that's an accurate statement, really.
If you are trying to identify closed source/proprietary origins of submitted linux code, there is just one thing you need.
God-like omniscience.
Linus is good, but he isn't that good.
Oh, if you wanted a horrible paperwork audit trail, you could make people include a signed document stating "I am the copyright holder for submitted code" or something like that. But part of the draw of working on OSS is to get away from all the icky lawyers and legal documents.
In this one specific instance, SCO is correct. It doesn't really affect their case at all, but they are still correct about this.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
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,
Much as I'm also getting slightly bored by these stories, it really is the biggest thing going on for years in the Linux (and maybe the whole Open Source) community. If, somehow, SCO succeeds in winning any of these cases it does have significant repercussions for most people who read Slashdot, somewhere down the line. (I know we all think it can't happen, but someone at SCO obviously believes they stand at least some chance..)
I know, I know, if there's infringing code it can just be pulled out etc, etc, but the PR disaster that would follow could spell real trouble for open source in general - we have to be careful here and not dismiss this totally, just in case it really does happen.
The blanket coverage is justified I think, because the open source movement as a whole really depends on this case being thrown out, or at least won heavily by IBM.
Q.
SCO themselves said it..
"If source code is copied from protected Unix code," the SCO document adds, "there is no way for Linus Torvalds to identify that fact."
So, there's no way he could have known in advance if a contribution came from somewhere else? Sounds like they are pointing at the process as the problem, rather than setting Linus up to take the hit.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2002- 32/0160.html
It seems to me the proposed use of MD5 sums is quite dangerous here, meaning that the md5 sum list might give away the original source. /*, the words copyright and SCO and such.
The next line can then be guessed, and this will be relatively easy because it has to be valid C. I don't think there is much 'randomness'in C, so it should be fairly easy.
It won't be hard to find the source matching the first 5 lines. probably somethine with
Fairly easy meaning with the use of brute force, which seems quite an appropriate term in this matter.
A friend of mine yesterday was telling me that an older version of SCO he has has some excellent tools that he has never seen anyone else write. I dont have any details, but if anyone knows what tools these are write a GPL version and release (out of the US of course) just to piss SCO off. And do it quickly, before IBM destroys them.
- The procedure throws away all code pieces
which occur more than once in the same version
of the code. Okay, most of them will be
trivial, but there might be some that aren't.
These pieces aren't compared to the other
version of the code. Might be an idea to use
a frequency threshold instead.
- During comparison of the two versions, all code
pieces with the same checksum are disregarded.
But different checksum does not mean different
code! MD5 are computed on string level - let
there be an additional comment, or a linebreak,
and you won't get a match. Some simple
operation to bring the code into a kind of
canonical formatting can take care of that.
If you don't do that, you run the risk of losing some correspondences, I'm afraid.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.
Where's my pitchfork?
:-)
Wrong OS
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
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
The only problem I see is that the hashes are still derived from SCO's intellectual property and are therefore still covered by copyright.
Nope, not a problem at all. I'm not a copyright expert, but the hashes would certainly not be covered by SCO copyright for two reasons: 1) They are not an original work of authorship, but instead an application of a mathematical algorithm to "fingerprint" a file; they're just a list of numbers. That would be like copyrighting the output of "ls -l". 2) Even if a judge somehow finds 1) above to be inapplicable, the hashes would certainly fall under the "fair use" exception to the copyright on the SCO files, as they are a form of commentary on them.
Of course, SCO will never agree to such reasonable measures, since they are not fundamentally looking for something reasonable, so the whole thing is moot. A far more likely scenario is that SCO may *eventually* be forced to submit their code base and backups to a court-appointed special master tasked with analyzing the issue of code derivation (what, when, and in which direction), and will be required to fully disclose their development logs to the court. At which time,assuming it ever gets to trial, the case will finally, finally collapse for good and all, and we can get back to sniping at Microsoft.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
The following describes the common sections found by the Inquirer reader (although I have only looked at the linux source files).
Of course, this assumes that the line numbers the Inquirer published are for the linux files and not the BSD files (why did they only publish one set?!?)
Can we please keep these SCO stories in the Caldera category? I literal signed up for an account solely so that I could filter them out. Now you're disguising them as Linux stories!? Argh!!
"If source code is copied from protected Unix code," the SCO document adds, "there is no way for Linus Torvalds to identify that fact."
True. It is impossible to find out if someone else has a tradesecret.
But then there is a lawyer problem. Linus (or some other kernel hacker) puts a GPL tag on the source. Is he/she allowed to do that? Is the GPL legal? The point is, who GPLed it, and does that make the GPL viral? (And is the Sys V copyright viral?)
They could always sue linus for being a basterd that who not care . He called himself that multiple times in interviews.
Go buy yourself some more vowels.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
... is to hijack Unix and all derived works. If they can con a court into revoking the AIX license, it will not be long before they go after all the other whose business is based on Unix.
As their business depends on the "trade secret" which is the Unix sources, merely winning damages from anyone who leaks the secret DOESN'T help SCO (apart from the money.)
SCO has to recreate the situation where ALL existing Unix licenses are revoked and all Unix-like code is awarded to SCO for safe keeping. Then they can make massive amounts of money re-licensing Unix to IBM etc.
(BTW, Sun invested $5M in SCO/Caldera in 2000)
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.
I think SCO is starting a patent war that may expose SW patents for what they are and the destructive capability they have - while not possessing many (any?) redeeming features.
And what's their winner argument in this case?
Linus is not checking all contributions against potential patents. Are you kidding me? So for every contribution he has to go search the patent database?
SCO and Software Patents, man if we could only hit 2 birds with one stone...
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
Nope. Microsoft may be evil, but SCO is simply dumb. "Evil" is cunning and scary. Someone cunning would have long since realized that these uncoordinated and unfounded all-out attacks simply make SCO look hysterical and ridiculous.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
Someone posted in the SCO article yesterday, that SCO was in a stock scam, and that their aim was to make money for the board for a while by keeping a high volume in the press before going under when the actual court case proves they do not have any real basis in their case.
I agree that SCO must be one or more of the following things:
1.SCO is indeed doing a stock scam as their actual products are close to worthless. An SEC investigation would be very apropriate here, but would only happen after the fact, sadly.
2.SCO is being funded by another party to persue this scheme, the most likely candidates being Microsoft or SUN, both of whom have a vested interest in seeing Linux and IBM suffer. I would go for Microsoft because while SUN has something to gain in seeing IBM suffer, they also have something to lose if Linux suffers. Microsoft is the only party that has something to gain if both Linux and IBM suffer. It would need a leaked email or something to start the ball rolling on an investigation into this side of the matter though. I also wonder at the same time why no leaked emails have as yet appeared from any SCO employees.
3.SCO's products are absolutely worthless and SCO is indeed trying to do a last ditch fight in order to legally force some kind of artificial marketshare for it's products. The fact that SCO has changed it's public statements on numerous occiasions and even changed the official claim recently (IBM bypassing export controls even though it is no business of SCO to enforce this and the RCU claim which is as patchy as well), means that SCO knows it is on shaky ground. The latest official claims show that SCO is indeed scraping the bottom of the barrel and are truly frightened by the fact that IBM hasn't taken them seriously. Their lawyers nerves must be blank. The accusation against Linux is simply something they are doing in order to try and strengthen their claim. It does however mean that they are actually pouring through every piece of available information in order to come up with some kind of evidence because they truly do not have any that would stand up in court.
The only thing that worries me is that Linus should perhaps learn when to shut the fuck up and think before he speaks. Courts are not democracies and crap like his statments on patents can and will be used against him.
That worked when the difference between proof-of-concept and production capacity was an extra mule. This doesn't work anymore. I know a bit about a lot of technical equipment from graduate school, equipment that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Let's say I invented something completely new and cool that was meant to work with complicated lasers. Under your idea, the best I can do is draw it and patent it. I can't test it, let alone produce it, because I can't afford lasers.
There's just no reason anymore to tie inventing to production. There's no reason, necessarily, why the two activities should be tied. And under your approach, you have made it impossible for anyone who's not already a millionaire to invent ANYTHING.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Right, so when some developer who is ignorant of US IP law asks Linus for his advice on a patent problem, Linus basically told him to STFU. And it was a good thing he did too - look at the riffraff who ends up pointing at things like that. What if the company owning the patent in question found that email? They wouldn't have to work at all to build a case - you've already proven that Linus and the other developers were aware of your IP at time they were developing a competing product. How smart would it be to document this freaking publicly?
Now, I expect Linus was expecting his flock to read bteween the lines there - it's not good necessarily to be ignorant of other patents - but it's a bad idea to let anyone, inside the company or out, to know about the knowledge. You can't exactly make this official corporate policy, but unofficial policy should be "do your own patent searches. Talk about them with no one."
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
It is based on something like this:
- Preprocess the code (replace all variables with the letter 'V', strip the comments, replace white space strings with a single character)
- Divide the result into fixed sized units of length k that overlap, each starting at a succeeding character. They call these k-grams
- Efficiently calculate a hash for each of these k-grams
- Divide the result into windows that contain a number of these k-grams
- Within each window, use a method of selecting a subset of these k-grams that does not depend on position, but rather on the k-gram itself, such as the minimum hash value within that window; if there are ties, select the right-most hash value within the window
- The result is the fingerprint of the code
- Any document with fingerprints in common has some code in common with the original source
Okay, that's a very rough idea of the process, but you might have some idea of it now. Check it out yourself if you're interested.The whitespace/indention problem could be fixed by converting the line to lowercase and removing all whitespace before calculating the MD5... Maybe also remove "{", "}" and ";"..
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
In related news SCO claims it hold the trademark for the three letter acronym IBM. "We bought it from a guy in Brooklyn for $7.50 and 17 glass beads."
The MD5 idea is a good idea, but I think it needs some refining.
//) [obviously additional rules for script files, maybe #]
- You want to get EVERY example, for potential manual review
- You want to avoid any problems with white space leading to different MD5s for "identical" code
- Doing a 5 line compare seems flawed as what if you compare lines 1-5 in A and B, but lines 1-5 in A match lines 2-6 in B
I therefore propose that:
1. before calculating any check sums, both files should be massaged into some common "base" format.
- Remove all white space inc. tabs and spaces
- Concatenate on one long line, but line break immediately after any semi-colon (;) or end-comment (*/) or immediately before begin comment (/* or
- With comments, line break at least every (say) 20 characters or if there was a line break in original file.
- Maintain some kind of map back from massaged file to Linux source (line 237 in massaged = line 40-42 in Linux source)
- In the massaged file, mark any line less than say 20 characters in a non-comment section as being potentially and probably too small to be copyrightable. This would eliminate stuff like i++; or #include . Matches for these should still show up in the overall results, but be considered as less important unless there are also lots of "more important" matches in the same source file as well.
2. Run both sets of sources thru this algorithm, and calculate two or more hashes for each line, say MD5 and some kind of CRC. If both sets of sources match for all the hashes, a match is found. This is to reduce number of false positives.
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.
Linus wrote:
"...the transparency in the process also means that if dishonesty happens, you can go back and see what went on."
Right on. In other words, if SCO would release info on what was copied, then by going through the archives it will be possible to see who contributed it, and under what auspices. So we can see if IBM did it, if Caldera did it, if John Quackenschmoe did it, and if there is a violation hold the appropriate party responsible and stop the FUD.
Of course, the fact that SCO hasn't done this only shows that the pieces of paper they hold in their hands, probably don't have the names on it they say they do.
The NY Times article had a surprisingly insightful closing quote.
/. readers, but it's refreshing when a mainstream article makes this point explicit. Slowly, perhaps, the general (non-geek) public will understand open source software and the issues surrounding it.
Indeed, because Linux code is published publicly, it is easier to track what I.B.M. contributed to the operating system. But the issue, of course, is whether SCO's Unix license covered any of the code I.B.M. put into Linux.
Should the SCO suit turn up any offending code, the open nature of Linux â" and the many programmers working on it â" will ensure a quick solution, according to open- source software experts.
Now, that should be old news for
Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
In all reality, microsoft has been paying SCO big bucks to do these things; why would a unix distributor decide to go completly nuts like this all of a sudden out of the blue? Something doesn't fit here. Then Microsoft comes along and buys a crapton of unix lisences for an undiscoled amount of moolah. So it's obvious (and anyone who doubts me is an idiot supreme) that SCO is doing this for Microsoft.
I don't think any major victory will come about for the linux community. Most likely, the linux source code will be contested for several years while hackers ignore the law and their contracts and do what they will, as they always have.
Something you've got to understand here is that microsoft doesn't want to spread fud about linux. They'd rather get the IP and whatnot for it, contest they own it and then sell it.
SCO will use the same tactics (and most likely, legal department) microsoft has to try to get the rights to use linux any way they feel fit. And if that happens, then I think there will be an outcry from the open source community, and probably people organizing to take down microsoft's computer network in it's entirety. I'd be angry if some multibillion doller corperation destroyed my community, way of life, and said my code was theirs and there was nothing I could do about it. Angry enough to get out the souce code, start finding errors and make a killer virus with the same people with whom I built the thing with.
And fine, mod me down if you must but there's only one resolution in a democratic system after all nonviolent solutions (including protest, due process, etc) have been tried, and that's violent protest, aka, war. I don't like violent protest, but if that's what they want to start than that's what they are going to get.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
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?
"IBM's Opponent in Suit Criticizes Linux Advocate"
WTF?I thought it was the IBM guys who traditionally were in suits?
.
They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
SCO isn't a software company anymore. They have descended into purely a lawsuit driven enterprise.
I'm inclined to believe it. Notice you never see anyone posting here (or anywhere else) that claims to be a developer for SCO? Do they even have any developers on the payroll anymore?
It would be interesting to get a perspective on all of this from some SCO employees - if they have any employees left besides lawyers, that is.
SCO won't let people see the contested source code without signing an outrageous NDA
This SCO thing is really starting to f**k me off. It's all just insubstantial FUD with sod-all solid facts. SCO's even looks like it's aiming it's guns at BSD - which is crazy as there has NEVER EVER been any System V code in any of the BSDs. I'm of the opinion that SCO's strategy is to declare total war on the entire Unix community in the hope that people fold. Criticize SCO and you'll be next....
So my message to SCO has to be put-up or shut-up.
I'm not a Linux user, I don't hack kernels. But I can find my way around source-code. So come on SCO I'll sign your fscking NDA to see what you're carping on about. I'll even check it against the BSD sources too....
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
Linus is not checking all contributions against potential patents. Are you kidding me? So for every contribution he has to go search the patent database?
From the article:
"If source code is copied from protected Unix code," the SCO document adds, "there is no way for Linus Torvalds to identify that fact." (emphasis added)
So they are saying Linus is a bad boy because he is NOT doing something THEY ACKNOWLEDGE HE CAN'T DO, even if he wanted to - which he has said he does not want to, and for good, sound, and sufficient reasons.
SCO(Caldera), I don't care how many lawyers you bring into the case, you are not able to hold someone to a standard that you then point out is unattainable.
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
I believe that our efforts should be aimed at identifying and exposing the top managers at SCO.
SCO is a company but it is also a group of people. SCO's current actions have to had been sanctioned by management at the highest level. Someone made a choice, someone said "let's go ahead with this".
So make it personal. By exposing each and every of SCO's top-level managers as being associated and willing participants in this mess their chances of ever again be employeed in a top-level management position (at least in this industry) are highly decreased.
This is especially true if they are tracked into any new job they go into and the company that employes them is exposed (thus being smeared along with SCO by their choice of managers) - any company that hires any one of those persons has a business ethics (or more precisely lack of it) that accepts this type of attitude.
Decisions are taken by someone (companies do not take decisions). Those that take the decisions (or are willing participiants in taking those decisions) should be made to assume their responsabilities instead of being allowed to hid behind a SCO-mask.
I'll agree with you there.
Oh, but they are.
My emphasis.
My emphasis again
... and again
... and again.
Well there's the problem! And I completely agree with you. But that is the current system. Lawyers don't generally get to argue what the system "should" be, unless they make it to the Supreme Court. It's highly unlikely this case will go that far, so the current "completely corrupt and obfuscated" system is in no immanent danger of reform.
Nope, no sig
I'm wondering why nobody in OSS community is considering hitting SCO where it hurts - in the pocket book.
Is there any legal or other reason why this is not feasible?
1. Find out what applications run on SCO and drive their O/S sales. Then write free clean-room, better, free, open source versions to run on any platform (Linux, other UNIX, Apple, even Windows) other than SCO Unices
2. Some Linux organization in each country, contact all Linux developers in that country and invite them to a free legal briefing. The company can pay their travel, etc, and for a lawyer to come brief them about their legal rights, etc. This would be peanuts for a big company, and would get the ball rolling if Linux contributors wanted to follow the example of (and actually follow up properly on) the guy who sent the Cease and Desist about SCO's Linux distribution of his GPL code in Germany.
Yep. and that's because SCO refuses to identify the protected code.
They also complain that Torvalds refuses to go hunting patents.. That's also appropriate. One of the best ways to avoid violating patented methods is to not know about them. If the solution is an obvious one, then the fact that you came to the same solution without konwing about the patent is almost a sufficient defence. On the other hand, if the solution is not an obvious one, then chances ar that you'll come up with a solution different enough from the pattern that the difference is a sufficient defence.
The purpose of a patent is to document a method such that (once the patent expires) anybody else can use it. The patent monopoly is just to ensure that people have an incentive to register their patents so that they ultimately do go into the public domain.
An interesting feature about the OS process is that -- once something goes into an OS project, it is (or at least should be) essentially unpatentable -- this is because any open source project is effectively published.. Especially for large and well-distributed projects like Linus, it's almost trivial to prove when that idea was published.
If you take the time to hunt patents before you use an idea, you run the risk of delaying the publication of an idea long enough for someone else to patent it.
The long and short result is that it's easier (and even better) to implement an idea and then wait to see if someone complains about a patent infringement than to go wandering through the patent office looking for something that may be the same as what you are using.
Reading through a patent application well enough to understand whether or not it applies to an idea is a long, difficult and dirty job. I'd much rather leave that to someone who's paid to do it (like the patent owner's lawer). Once the issue is raised by somene who cares about it then I'll deal with that bridge when I come to it.
I think that Linus has the same idea, and it sounds like he got it from his business colleagues.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Anybody here see the irony of SCO's comments appearing in the New York Times, previous employer of Jayson Blair. Now we have two reality distortion fields to deal with.
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.
However, the point is that SCO is claiming that their code has already been released (unauthorized) into the wild. This means that anyone who can read the linux kernel code can also view the (supposed) SCO code as well, because it is (supposedly) in the linux kernel. While the fact that SCO won't likely even support the MD5 summing method (which wouldn't work very well if the code is only "similar" as opposed to "identical") is more damning to them, even describing *where* the two equivilent chunks of code are will not hurt them anymore than they are claiming they have already been hurt.
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.
Managers. Lots and lots of managers. (Perhaps I'm being funny here, but it's true at the same time.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
I.B.M.'s Opponent in Suit Criticizes Linux Advocate
SCO is so insignificant it is not mentioned the headline! Those guys at the Times are smarter than I thought, I may have to kick down for a subscription.
It is just so sad, I learned Unix on SCO, back in '92. Shame to see the old girl is on crack.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Even if every single line of code the SCO is objecting to happened to get removed by some massive kernel overhaul by someone who had never had the opportunity to see SCO's "evidence", SCO would still claims rights over the changes as a derivative work because they consider the fact that their code was merely inspiration to be a cause for the new code to be "derivative".
SCO would consider any code developed based merely on what one had learned from Unix code to be derivative. This would mean that at least 3/4 of the programs I wrote in Operating Systems class were probably infringing in some way on SCO's IP. The GPL does not consider code developed based on what one learned from GPL code to be derivative -- The GPL only considers a derivative if it is copied and modified, not if it is completely rewritten from scratch by the application of actually understanding what the code does.
Let's say, for example, I wrote a book that had all the same concepts and ideas as Lord of the Rings, but didn't use any of Tolkien's names or trademarks. Having already read LotR, my book would obviously be a "derivative". Indeed many people might say my book was just a knockoff of LotR. While many Tolkien fans would likely be outraged at my writing it, I wouldn't actually be breaking any copyright laws, however. The most anyone could do would be to personally boycott my work, but they couldn't stop me from publishing it or from it being distributed anywhere I chose.
Just as a quick recap, here are the four major IP's. I find it interesting that SCO has changed its story so many times, it's hard to actually tell which sort of IP they actually have that they are referring to. It seems like the premise of trade secret is closest to what they mean, but they keep talking about owning rights to derivative works, which has to fall back on the strength of copyright, not trade secrets.
Copyright only protects content, it cannot protect ideas. Copyright also has provisions for protecting works that can reasonably be considered derivatives, such as translation into another language, changing the media of distribution, and several others. Trade secret can protect ideas, but it cannot protect them once they are publically known (although it is entirely reasonable to make a claim for damages from the party that caused ones trade secret to become public in the first place). Further, trade secrets do not protect against reverse engineering or reinvention. Patents more completely protect inventions and methods, even to the point of stopping reverse engineering, but unlike trade secrets, *MUST* be public knowledge in order to retain patent protection. Trademarks protect terminology, must be publically known, must be defended in order to be retained, and only apply to the field in which the trademark itself is applied (for example, a person should be able to start a plumbing business called "Apple Plumbing", without violating Apple's trademark).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
When you buy SCO Unix (ha!) or AIX, or MS Windows, or anything, how do you know, as a customer, that its unemcumbered by patents?
As a developer, when you write a bubble sort, how do you know someone hasn't patented the idea?
As a company, given the vague nature of software patents ("A method to do ecommerce using a single button on a web page..."), and also given that developers don't necessary explicitly say what methods they're using. So a search is not reasonably possible.
Finally, even if you buy into the idea of software patents, how would you know if MS had infringed? Unless you have access to the source code, you have no idea. And last I check, MS doesn't readily hand out source code to make sure they're not violating any software patents.
In points out the fallacy of software patents, it highlights the stupidity of granting them, and it shows why all software patents are unenforceable, *except* against open source software.
Software patents must be eliminated: they serve no purpose except as litigation tools for large companies.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
One thing to keep in mind is that the code SCO claims is infringing on their rights did not already exist in SCO's copies of System V and their own derived code.
What SCO is claiming is that their rights include the modifications made by companies licensing the AT&T System V code.
Their contracts specify that any derived works created by the licensees is also covered by the license.
But their use of the phrase "derived works" does not seem at all reasonable or acceptable.
The question is what does the phrase mean? If you look at Title 17 of the U.S. Code (available from wwww.law.cornell.edu), you find the following definition:
In other words, when you modify SCO's licensed code, the result is a derivative work and is consequently covered by the license.
However, they are claiming that the modifications themselves are also derivative works, apart from the object being modified.
But if you look at the definition, the derivative work is a transformation, adaptation, revision, ..., of the original work.
The code in question is largely or maybe entirely code that was done by others apart from AT&T/Novell/SCO and added to their licensed copy of the code to create something better. The code that you get when you add the additional code to the original code is clearly a derivative work and SCO clearly has interests in keeping you from distributing the resulting derivative work.
But SCO seems to be claiming that the code added to System V to create a derivative work of System V is itself a derivative work.
The only other possibility I can imagine is that they are claiming that you can't copy code directly from the derivative work into another product because of the licenses. (See Exhibit C of their lawsuit.)
But I haven't seen any evidence that IBM has done that. If someone at IBM excerpted the additions to the code so that none of the System V code was present and those excerpts were added to the Linux code, I don't think think there would be any violations at all.
If someone at IBM did copy the additions directly from the derived work and was careful to avoid copying any System V code over, I suppose that would be a technical violation of the contract. I think a technical violation of that sort would be so minor that they wouldn't warrant anything more than a letter from SCO to IBM demanding that they be more careful.
And there are no allegations that I've heard that IBM did a copy and paste of their own additions directly from the SCO code to their own code.
It would be nice to find out what some knowledgeable lawyers thought about the issue of whether or not adding Sequent or IBM's own code to System V makes their own code a "derived work" of System V. It could be that the legal system sees it some other way.
One other point. If SCO is interpreting the phrase "derived work" in an unobvious way, then the phrase should probably have been clarified in the agreement instead of leaving it ambiguous. In law, isn't an ambiguity in a contract generally interpreted against the side who wrote the contract? Since the basic contract was probably written by AT&T and then hammered out between both sides, I think that any ambiguity would likely be decided in IBM's favor.
- 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.
It could be argued that way in the earlier days, when people went around Microsoft wearing buttons saying "B.O.G.U.S." (bend over, grease up, sucker) to remind those whose stocks hadn't yet been vested that their stock holdings were (also a not-so-subtle badge of seniority)
Let's face it - you've become a millionare, you want a home life, you leave. Lots of talent left - some temporarily (gone to pick lettuce, as one employee did, just to get a break), and others, well, they either retired, or created/joined start-ups.
Remember - no overtime/weekend pay, the expectation of 80-100 hour weeks as normal, etc. And fewer interesting challenges for top coders. Under those conditions, the ones who stay are the ones you would want to leave, so we're probably seeing a rush to the bottom in terms of code talent/quality at Microsoft.
This would explain why they had to take a couple of months to "refresh" people on the idea that buffer overflows are a "bad thing". And, when taht didn't work, appoint a group of code reviewers just to check for such inanities.
Not quite. SCO does seem intent on dancing on the thin edge, but their strategy appears to be placing Linux and IBM on the defensive, i.e., making the Linux community prove it didn't steal code. In this instance, SCO is positioning itself to assert that someone could easily slip proprietary code into Linux because no one is checking to make sure they don't. To bolster that assertion, they can produce Linus' statement counseling contributors to avoid reviewing patents. Can the Linux community show a court anything to the contrary?
Knowledge of the technical issues isn't required of the court. Knowledge of patent law is required. If SCO does, in fact, show a court proprietary code copied into Linux, IBM and the Linux community will need good lawyers, not more assertions that the openness of their development process keeps people honest.
It only takes one dishonest developer to make SCO right.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
However, this standard is not attainable by SCO either. It may not even be attainable by IBM.
Their entire rant can be turned back on them and used to expose their own poor practices.
The development model has nothing to do with whether or not the problem is soluable.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
1. Linus manages the production of software with all of the available source published in the public domain.
2. Linus tracks each individual contributor to the kernel back to the start of Linux development.
3. We think that your auditing process ought to include a laborious process of researching every patent ever filed for any technology related to kernel development.
4. We find that this process is flawed compared to our model of:
a) closing our source from public view, thereby increasing the potential that stolen code is in our source,
b) not identifying who is working on particular aspects of kernel development and the potential conflicts of interest that might develop (e.g., hiring a Sun developer and then using their expertise to enhance SCO's code), and
c) not researching every patent ever filed for any technology related to kernel development thereby giving us plausible deniability if we develop code that is similar to a competitor's IP.
Does anyone but me think that SCO is getting funnier as time drags on?
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
So now SCO come along and say that they own blah blah blah, because I implemented it into AndyIX first. As far as I can see, this seems to be the basis of SCO's "case". If the GPL is "viral", then SCO's Unix licence must surely qualify as a WMD?!
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
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
An idea: the method of 'shingles' (fingerprints of n-grams of lines/words/characters) could be used for creating a big, shared repository of copyrighted code -- without the code. This can avoid this kind of claims in the future, without the need of manually checking for every line of code contributed to open source projects.
A 'client' program is run by people that have access to copyrighted code. Then program generates the fingerprints, that are uploaded to the repository (including information about the copyright holder, software name, version, filename, linenums, fingerprint). Whenever anyone wants to check if a piece of code is copyrighted, s/he can generate the fingerprints and compare them against the repository.
False positives?: MD5 checksums in general don't collide. Poisoning?: probably a person can upload huge amounts of fake MD5 checksums. That's why some redundancy is necessary: an MD5 checksum is valid if it has been uploaded by at least X people.
SCO could already provide us with a list of files and line numbers they claim are infringed, since they have access to both sources.
/foo/bar.c in Linux 2.4.18 violates our IP rights" and it would not violate their IP at all, since it simply a reference to a location in a public work.
They could already have stated "We claim line 13-37 of
To make a more concrete example, I could claim that Stephen King's latest novel has sentences identical to mine. But when asked to point them out, I would answer "No, that would reveal what my sentences are. See you in court." Does that make any kind of sense?
The fact that they won't show it except under an NDA, makes it very clear that they do not *want* to identify the infringing pieces, if there are any at all. They certainly don't want anyone to be able to find them or replace them.
The MD5 approach would be appropriate for two closed source companies disputing the same problem - it allows a comparison by a third party without compromising either codebase. But in this case SCO has already done what the program is meant to do - they just won't tell you the results. Period.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.