Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USENIX Panel On SCO Lawsuit Now Available

Posted by timothy on from the sound-thrashing dept.

porkrind writes "No Starch Press and The USENIX Association co-sponsored a discussion on the SCO vs. IBM case at the USENIX Annual Technical Conference. Now you can listen as Chris DiBona, Don Marti, Jon "maddog" Hall, and others explain the nuances of the case. Click here for the MP3."

11 of 28 comments (clear)

  1. BitTorrent mirror of MP3 (~8mb) by mcgroarty · · Score: 3, Informative

    Should this thing get all slashdotted to hell, I've got a BitTorrent mirror of the MP3 available here.

  2. MP3 mirror by Laven · · Score: 3, Informative

    ftp://videl.ics.hawaii.edu/temp/usenix-slashdot/us enix.mp3
    Mirror of MP3 just in case of Slashdotting.

  3. I have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Okay, not OG, just another AC.

    But yes, I've read all available documents and exhibits except for the NDA code specifically under scrutiny.

    From what I can tell SCO has quite a case if the NDA code can be proven to be illegally added to Linux. If not, then the whole case falls apart.

    Whoa. I just summarized that last 3 weeks of Slashdot in two sentences.

    1. Re:I have by Gaetano · · Score: 4, Informative

      80 lines of code makes quite a case? The NDA is to see 80 lines of code.

      Here is an essay from a person that signed the NDA. Here is a bit you may find interesting:

      Here is what I think I can say about the code I saw. The code is fairly trivial--the kind of stuff I wrote in school. The similar portions of the code were some 80 lines or so. Looking around the Net, I found close variants of the code, with the same comments and variable names, in sources other than Linux distributions. The code is not in a central part of the Linux kernel. The code does not appear to have been contributed to Linux by SCO or Caldera. The code exists in current versions of the Linux kernel.

      Doesn't sound like much of a case to me. Perhaps you mean if hundreds of thousands of lines of code, that would make it quite a case.

    2. Re:I have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here are the points as you have misunderstood them.

      1) The code exists in the kernel (regardless of whether it is in the "central part" or it or not).

      2) The code was put there by someone other than the copyright holder i.e. not SCO and not Caldera. IOW, this code is in there contrary to the wishes of the copyright owner.

      3) The code continues to exist, violating SCO's copyrights.

      Now, maybe the code just happened to match up byte for byte with SCO's code and this is all a big misunderstanding. Or, someone stupidly thought that they had the right to stick into the Linux code any old code they found useful.

      Considering the odds, the second one is the safer bet.

    3. Re:I have by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It all depends on how clueless the judge is.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    4. Re:I have by Edward+Scissorhands · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your premiss number (2) is false. The code was put there by the copyright owner. The code in question, according to SCO's own claim, came from IBM's engineers. If you had read the legal filings (which I doubt you have), and in particular Exhibit C Paragraph 2, you would see that EVEN if IBM added code that they then added back to System V "derived works"; e.g., AIX or UnixWare, since the code was written by IBM's engineers, now pay attention, IBM OWNS THE SOURCE CODE EVEN IF IT WAS PLACED INTO SYSTEM V DERIVATIVE WORKS. Why do you think that IBM has been so curt and so blunt in their statements? This lawsuit is a joke, and it's pure FUD. Once the case goes to trial and lawyers get to debate it in front of a judge, I doubt it's going to stay around very long. In fact, I would imagine that IBM's lawyers will file a motion on the first day of proceedings for dismissal on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

      Regards,

      Edward

    5. Re:I have by hobit · · Score: 2, Informative

      The law prohibits verbatim copying of copyrighted materials.

      Not always. When working on a program and taking contributions from others the rule of thumb is that if it is less than 1 page don't worry about it too much. Fair use and the like protect you. It is like quoting from a book.

      Not saying 80 lines isn't enough for a court to rule infringment but the number of lines does matter.

      --
      As Nietsche famously said, "If you stare too long into the Abyss, 1d4 Tanar'ri of random type will attack you."
    6. Re:I have by ClosedSource · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a bit dangerous to compare books and software. Fair use might protect you if you were merely publishing a small section of code as text, but incorporating it into a runnable product is a bit different. It would be more like incorporating 1 min of someone else's movie in your movie. I doubt that fair use would protect you in that case.

    7. Re:I have by schon · · Score: 3, Informative

      3) The code continues to exist, violating SCO's copyrights.

      Not quite.

      The alleged code continues to exist because SCO refuses to tell anyone where it is.

      Do some reading about the Doctrine of Laches. Basically, since SCO refuses to tell anyone where the alleged code is, then the alleged code is worthless to them. Since the code is worthless, SCO can't claim injury.

      That's why the first order of business in a copyright enforcement process is to tell the infringing party what it is they're doing wrong.

      By refusing to tell anyone where the alleged code is, so that it can be removed, they are essentially giving up any copyright claims they might have had.

  4. One of the best comments... by mcgroarty · · Score: 4, Funny
    One of the best comments in the stream was that the estimated number of Linux users is about equal to SCO's current market cap.

    So, if every Linux user could go out and do something that cost SCO a dollar... :-)