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."

3 of 28 comments (clear)

  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. 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... :-)

  3. 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