Back To SCO

wampl3r writes " Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens deliver a great response to SCO's recent Letter to the Open Source Community. Their response does a good job of presenting many of the finer points we have been arguing about around here, but it's nice to see them in such a formal, well-thought-out letter." Munchola adds "Meanwhile, ComputerWire, from where McBride misquoted Perens in the first place, sets the record straight: 'In his statement McBride appears to have attributed a ComputerWire paraphrase as a quote from Perens.'" stefan points to this response to McBride's letter from Kevin Bedell, LinuxWorld Magazine's Editor. Below, find one reader's idea about the "stolen lines" SCO claims are in the Linux kernel, and one expert's claim that SCO might not know some of its own source code very well.

VikingBrad writes "The Sydney Morning Herald has an article on Dr Warwick Toomey of The Unix Heritage Society claiming that SCO may not know the origin of code in System V, including claims that there is a lot of BSD software in Sys V."

Alex writes "I wondered where the 100k+ lines of copied code in the linux kernel would come from in comparison to the SCO Unixware stuff. Then a thought popped up in my head: what if they just compared linewise? All those empty lines in the code would have the same content. But how many empty lines are in the Linux Kernel Code? This small shell script counts them for you:

emptylines=0; function parse_dir () { for file in $1/*; do if [ -d "$file" ]; then parse_dir $file; else while read line; do if [ "$line" = "" ]; then emptylines=$[$emptylines+1]; echo $emptylines; fi; done

Kernel 2.4.22, yet cleaned of the code which SCO claimed was stolen, has still 733140 empty lines, probably copied and pasted by the bad, bad kernel developers from the good, good SCO guys..."

Comments

disappointed

[kurosawdust]

Aww man, the one time I want ESR to mention his gun collection and he doesn't do it!

Re:disappointed

[tomhudson]

There is no need for a license to implement any unix service under windows. The POSIX specification is out there for anyone to implement. So stop it! (Besides, Microsoft already had a license - remember this (Xenix

In the late 1970's Microsoft licensed UNIX source code from AT&T

They have a license from AT & T, they have access to the POSIX specification, wtf more do you want?

Re:disappointed

[inertia187]

emptylines=0; function parse_dir () { for file in $1/*; do if [ -d "$file" ]; then parse_dir $file; else while read line; do if [ "$line" = "" ]; then emptylines=$[$emptylines+1]; echo $emptylines; fi; done

It don't work none.

Re:disappointed

[Hubert_Shrump]

how about:

cd (linux kernel dir)
find . -exec awk '{if ($0 ~ /^$/) {print $0}}' {} \; 2>/dev/null | wc -l

I get 650580 off of 2.4.21

Re:disappointed

[treat]

find . -exec awk '{if ($0 ~ /^$/) {print $0}}' {} \; 2>/dev/null | wc -l

Not only is this unnecessarily complex, you have a fork/exec for every file, plus one for the find and a needless one for wc. (Not to mention pointlessly running awk on directories requiring you to redirect stderr to make the output look nice).

At least the original one was slightly clever in that it didn't run any external commands, but try this instead. It will be by far the fastest, and it is the easiest to understand. I challenge anyone to come up with a solution that is cleaner, or one that is more than 1% faster.

find . -type f -print0|xargs -0 grep '^$'|wc -l

Of course, if Unix didn't suck, you could do this: awk '/^$/{A+=1}END{print A}' `find . -type f`

Re:disappointed

[tomhudson]

A work-alike does NOT need to violate a patent. The work-alike can use other methods to achieve the same goal, in which case there is no patent violation.

Also, if the method can be shown to be trivial, obvious, etc., the patent protection is lost. That's the law. Any patented process or method has to demonstrate originality, non-obviousnes to those specialized in the field, not be trivial, no prior art, etc. Failing any one of these invalidates the patent (which is why so many software patents aren't valid. Even the USPTO admits they dropped the ball on this issue, and have to revise their procedures).

+5

[Anonymous Coward]

+5 for the poor coward....

Response to SCO's Open Letter
Sep 10, 2003, 05 :30 UTC (0 Talkback[s]) (12873 reads)
(Other stories by Eric S. Raymond and Bruce Perens)

[ Thanks to Gerry Tool for this link. ]

Mr. McBride, in your "Open Letter to the Open Source Community" your offer to negotiate with us comes at the end of a farrago of falsehoods, half-truths, evasions, slanders, and misrepresentations. You must do better than this. We will not attempt to erect a compromise with you on a foundation of dishonesty.

Your statement that Eric Raymond was "contacted by the perpetrator" of the DDoS attack on SCO begins the falsehoods. Mr. Raymond made very clear when volunteering his information and calling for the attack to cease that he was contacted by a third-party associate of the perpetrator and does not have the perpetrator's identity to reveal. The DDoS attack ceased, and has not resumed. Mr. Raymond subsequently received emailed thanks for his action from Blake Stowell of SCO.

Your implication that the attacks are a continuing threat, and that the President of the Open Source Initiative is continuing to shield their perpetrator, is therefore not merely both false and slanderous, but contradictory with SCO's own previous behavior. In all three respects it is what we in the open-source community have come to expect from SCO. If you are serious about negotiating with anyone, rather than simply posturing for the media, such behavior must cease.

In fact, leaders of the open-source community have acted responsibly and swiftly to end the DDoS attacks -- just as we continue to act swiftly to address IP-contamination issues when they are aired in a clear and responsible manner. This history is open to public inspection in the linux-kernel archives and elsewhere, with numerous instances on record of Linus Torvalds and others refusing code in circumstances where there is reason to believe it might be compromised by third-party IP claims.

As software developers, intellectual property is our stock in trade. Whether we elect to trade our effort for money or rewards of a subtler and more enduring nature, we are instinctively respectful of concerns about IP, credit, and provenance. Our licenses (the GPL and others) work with copyright law, not against it. We reject your attempt to portray our community as a howling wilderness of IP thieves as a baseless and destructive smear.

We in the open-source community are accountable. Our source code is public, exposed to scrutiny by anyone who wishes to contest its ownership. Can SCO or any other closed-source vendor say the same? Who knows what IP violations, what stripped copyrights, what stolen techniques lurk in the depths of closed-source code? Indeed, not only SCO's past representations that it was merging GPLed Linux technology into SCO Unix but Judge Debevoise's rulings in the last big lawsuit on Unix IP rights suggest strongly that SCO should clean up its own act before daring to accuse others of theft.

SCO taxes IBM and others with failing to provide warranties or indemnify users against third-party IP claims, conveniently neglecting to mention that the warranties and indemnities offered by SCO and others such as Microsoft are carefully worded so that the vendor's liability is limited to the software purchase price, They thus offer no actual shield against liability claims or damages. They are, in a word, shams designed to lull users into a false sense of security -- a form of sham which we believe you press on us solely as posturing, rather than out of any genuine concern for users. We in the open-source community, and our corporate allies, refuse to play that dishonest game.

You invite us to negotiate, but you have persistently refused to state a negotiable claim. You have made allegations of a million lines of copied code which are mathematically impossible given the known, publicly accessible history of Linux development. You have uttered vast conspiracy theories which fail to be v

Re:+5

[gpinzone]

...not merely both false and slanderous, but contradictory...

Slander is spoken. Libel is written. He's guilty of libel.

Yours truly,
J. Jonah Jameson

Re:+5

[MoxCamel]

We will not attempt to erect a compromise with you on a foundation of dishonesty.

Heh heh...he said erect...

Darl McBride is a Big Fat Idiot: A Fair and Balanced Review of SCO

Re:+5

[Our Man In Redmond]

McBride has given speeches and issued written statements. IANAL, but that sounds like both slander and libel to me.

Re:+5

[angst7]

Slander is spoken. Libel is written. He's guilty of libel.

While Libel refers specifically to written, published defamatory statements, and slander is used from a legal standpoint to refer to such communicated orally; slander is also generally used in a broader sense to refer to any combination of such abuse. In this case, McBride is guilty of both forms of defamation primarily in the form of interviews, tele-conferences and public presentations. Hence, slander is probably the best word to describe the majority of his acts.

If he had only begun to carry on this way in this letter, Libel might be a better word.

$0.02 down the drain.

Re:+5

[DaveAtFraud]

I clicked around on the mouthpiece (thanks to tomhudson for posting it) that routes SCO's FUD. I ran across the following under their terms and conditions:

"Member is responsible for the content and accuracy of all news copy and other information submitted by it. Because of the volume of information and copy submitted to PR Newswire, PR Newswire cannot be responsible for verifying any facts contained therein. Member represents and warrants to PR Newswire that (i) it has the right to deliver to PR Newswire all information and copy submitted to it, (ii) it will comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, including but not limited to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 and laws relating to "spam", and (iii) no information or copy submitted by Member will contain any content that is obscene, libelous, slanderous or otherwise defamatory, false or misleading or which violates any copyright, right of privacy or publicity or other right of any person. Member shall indemnify and hold harmless PR Newswire, its affiliated companies and its third party vendors, including distributors, from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) arising out of or relating to any breach by Member of the foregoing representations and warranties or otherwise arising out of or relating to the contents or nature of copy and other information provided by Member.

(emphasis mine)

I suggest that Bruce and Eric file a complaint with PR Newswire that Darl and SCO are not complying with their terms and conditions.

How can one steal lines of code?

[Thinkit3]

You can copy them, but not steal them. Unless you delete the lines that were there, but I doubt that happened. How illogical.

Re:How can one steal lines of code?

[bladernr]

Wow. That's a thinker.

If you check out dictionary.com's definition of steal, it seems clearer. "To steal" is broader than "you have the item, now I do not." The first definition is "to take (the property of another) without right or permission."

Again according to dictionary.com, the 3rd definition of property is "Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks." So, I think steal applies, at least according to dictionary.com, because to steal is to take property, and property can be somethign intangible like a copyright.

With all of that said, saying steal is, if not inaccurate, at least confusing. According to this article on O'Reilly, copyright infringement would be a much better way to say what SCO is claiming (IMO, this would apply to the RIAA as well).

So, I guess the short answer is that "theft" doesn't necessary mean that I no longer have it, only that you do, and the longer answer is that "infringed my copyright" would be a perhaps more useful choice of words.

Well, useful for people who want to have rational, non-emotional, thinking conversations. What gets more attention in the court of public option: 1) "You infringed my copyright !" or 2) "You're a thief!"? IMHO, that is why they use the word "steal."

Re:How can one steal lines of code?

[BigBadBri]

Specious crap.

Why else would there be a law against theft, and a law of copyright?

If you could make copyright infringement equivalent to theft, there would not be a need for copyright law.

You're indulging in trollish sophistry.

Get back under your bridge.

Re:How can one steal lines of code?

[Alsee]

First, as for theft allow me to quote the US Supreme Court:

"the rights of a copyright holder are `different' from the rights of owners of other kinds of property...the copyright holder owns only a bundle of intangible rights which can be infringed, but not stolen or converted... It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud."

As for SCO's claims, they are constantly changing and vauge, but as far as I can tell SCO appears to have backed off from actual claims copying. SCO is spreading tons of FUD and confusion, but it seems that their case is based entirely on a contract dispute with IBM and a ludacris interpretation of "derivative work".

-

Re:How can one steal lines of code?

[Alsee]

gee Alsee. if you had REAL research skill, you'd cite the case that came from. Then again, since you spend all your time posting to slashdot, you probably indeed have no research skills.

Moron.

Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)

In contrast, the Government's theory here would make theft, conversion, or fraud equivalent to wrongful appropriation of statutorily protected rights in copyright. The copyright owner, however, holds no ordinary chattel. A copyright, like other intellectual property, comprises a series of carefully defined and carefully delimited interests to which the law affords correspondingly exact protections. "Section 106 of the Copyright Act confers a bundle of exclusive rights [473 U.S. 207, 217] to the owner of the copyright," which include the rights "to publish, copy, and distribute the author's work." Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 546 -547 (1985). See 17 U.S.C. 106. However, "[t]his protection has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all possible uses of his work." Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 432 (1984); id., at 462-463 (dissenting opinion). For example, 107 of the Copyright Act "codifies the traditional privilege of other authors to make `fair use' of an earlier writer's work." Harper & Row, supra, at 547. Likewise, 115 grants compulsory licenses in nondramatic musical works. Thus, the property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," for the copyright holder's dominion is subjected to precisely defined limits.

It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "`Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner,' that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, `is an infringer of the copyright.' [17 U.S.C.] 501(a)." Sony Corp., supra, at 433. There is no dispute in this case that Dowling's unauthorized inclusion on his bootleg albums of performances of copyrighted compositions constituted infringement of those copyrights. It is less clear, however, that the taking that occurs when an infringer arrogates the use of another's protected work comfortably fits the terms associated with physical removal employed by 2314. The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful [473 U.S. 207, 218] appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

-

Let's make this a press release!

[mflaster]

Is anyone or their linux-related company a member of any wire associations? Some anti-FUD articles really need to be filed as a press release, specifically mentioning SCOX.

Right now, if you go to Yahoo, and search for news on SCOX, you only find their press releases. We need to get some of our opinions out there so they'll show as news on SCO!

Can anyone help? Doesn't this seem like an important thing to do??

Mike

Re:Let's make this a press release!

[Anonymous Coward]

...it's not like they attempted to legally rape a 12 year old girl.

No, SCO is more interested in raping a (nearly) 12 year old operating system.

Re:Let's make this a press release!

[schon]

We need facts, not opinions.

Why? Lack of facts hasn't stopped SCO - why should it stop us? :o)

Re:Let's make this a press release!

[skogs]

I agree. There does seem to be a depressing amount of uninformed or misinformed people running around. I recently talked to one of the new computer admins in my shop. Hes a really young guy, and obviously just learning how to administer his own trip to the urinal...but he was asking other questions about networking and VPN tunneling. He brought up how he's got something to do with SCO back home...

We chuckled and told him to stay as far away from SCO as humanly possible. He is 'in the industry' and yet he did not know a thing about it. innocense is bliss.

Re:Let's make this a press release!

[stratjakt]

Thing is, to successfully issue a press release, the press has to give a shit who you are.

Case in point, I ran out of Pop Tarts this morning and held a press conference about it and my plans to get some more at Super Fresh, but hardly anyone showed up - except for C-SPAN.

Re:Let's make this a press release!

[Zathrus]

I agree on the facts bit, but that hasn't stopped SCO from doing press releases. I'd honestly like to see ESR follow up on the "slanderous" bits from the response statement and take SCO to court though -- except that he'd have to foot the bill himself while McBride can use the corporate lawyers of SCO. Not a good case.

As for doing a press release -- it may not cost much, but unless you're a publicly listed company or some other well known entity (research/consulting group, non-profit group, etc. -- with the emphasis on "well known") it won't do you any good. There's a ton of cranks out there putting out press releases daily on everything from UFOs to perpetual motion machines.

The reality is that Redhat, SuSE, IBM, Novell, or some other large company would have to put out the press release to do any good. Redhat and IBM are currently engaged in legal actions and aren't likely to do so, since it could be used as evidence at that point. SuSE could, but being a foreign company it would largely be ignored by the US press and financial media (that whole "well known" bit). Novell seems to have backed out of the case after dropping a bombshell (and a dud -- which was rather embarassing for them I'm sure).

I'm sure there's other outlets available -- research groups and major trade or mainstream papers seem the most obvious -- but they're still fairly inaccessible.

Re:Let's make this a press release!

[mflaster]

Thing is, to successfully issue a press release, the press has to give a shit who you are.

This is not true. If you subscribe to a service, and submit a press release, the wire services will pick it up. When I had a small company, we issued press releases. We paid our couple hundred bucks, our press release got out.

It's different than holding a news conference.

Re:Let's make this a press release!

[lowy]

It was reported earlier today that Novell has spoken out against McBride, SCO, and their chances of winning the IBM lawsuit.

Alas, such stories don't get referenced by Yahoo! Finance and most SCO investors don't search Google News, (but should).

Re:Let's make this a press release!

[stratjakt]

But unless anyone's heard of you and cares what you have to say, noone will read it, let alone publish it.

Unless it's a realllllllly slow news day.

Breaking news..


GUY ON SLASHDOT THINKS DARL MCBRIDE BIG FAG (AP)

blah blah blah blah

Re:Let's make this a press release!

[iabervon]

ESR and Perens can be considered, for the purposes of this particular statement, well-known, since they're referred to by name in SCO's press release.

I'd personally like to see ESR and Perens sue McBride personally, since the slanderous letter seems to be from him, rather than officially from SCO. Furthermore, McBride, unlike SCO, will probably not be bankrupt before a slander lawsuit could complete.

Re:Let's make this a press release!

[Alsee]

I and the three other people who were watching CSPAN this morning did not particularly appreciate listening to you talk about Pop Tarts for fourty-five minutes. I almost changed the channel.

-

They've copyrighted BLANK LINES!!!!

[PatSand]

Oh! My! Gawd!

They're going to go after the federal government next...there go my taxes...

And what about the "This page intentionally left blank" world?

I feel like violating some copyright...

(blank line)

(blank line)

(blank line)

If SCO wants to collect from me, I have one question: Got change for a penny?

I want my change back...

Re:They've copyrighted BLANK LINES!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

And what about the "This page intentionally left blank" world?

Any page claiming it is blank is lying.

Re:They've copyrighted BLANK LINES!!!!

[stevesliva]

I would think that a "blank line" pretty accurately reflects the intellectual property of SCO. This opinion is mine, and not my employer's.

Re:They've copyrighted BLANK LINES!!!!

[Midnight Thunder]

Well, I suppose there goes the printer paper industry. With the amount of blank paper being churned out, there will be a field day.

Re:They've copyrighted BLANK LINES!!!!

[linuxbikr]

I got an extra 10 points on a C programming exam in college for writing an essay on the back of such a page explaining how the term was a paradox.

I wish I could've gotten a copy of the exam paper and framed it.

MOD PARENT UP

[aridhol]

The average investor only sees one side of this story. We need more coverage of our side.

SCO is not the problem. Canopy is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Canopy own SCO. Darl McBride can't take a dump without Ralph J. Yarro's approval.

Here's some info on Ralph ...
from vultus.com .

Under Ralph's direction, the Canopy Group has identified and invested in promising open source and Internet infrastructure technologies. Canopy's greatest strength lies in providing the companies that produce these technologies a sheltered environment in which they can grow and develop. Canopy companies are strongly encouraged to work with each in synergistic partnerships.

Ralph also servers as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Angel Partners, a 501(c)3 support organization for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He is also a Trustee for the Noorda Family Trust, the Scenic View Center, and the Worth of a Soul Foundation. He is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Altiris, AP Software, Caldera Systems, Center 7, Coresoft, and Helius. He sits on the Board of Directors for: the Canopy Group, 2NetFX, Arcanvs, Cogito, DataCrystal, Expressware, Global Prime, The Guy Store, HomePipeLine, iBase Systems, Interworks, Lineo, MTI, ManageMyMoney, Nombas, Profit Pro, Recruit Search, Troll Tech and TugNut.

The way to get a Ralph is though these company he controls.

Hey, I'm sorry to you guys that love these companies, but the way to hurt Ralph Yarro is to go for jugular. If the guys that ran these companies called up Ralph and told him to knock it off, the suit would get dropped tomorrow. As long as they can go scot-free taking Canopy money and not paying the consequences, then Ralph can do what ever he wants.

Time to attack this bastard on all fronts.

blank lines?

[chochos]

Does this mean I have to remove all the blank lines from all my code to avoid being sued by SCO?

Re:blank lines?

[pyrrhonist]

Yes, and in order to keep the code readable without blank lines, you have to rewrite everything in Python.

Any ideas?

[barcodez]

I wonder if anyone has an opinion of how long this SCO thing will go on for. It seems only to benefit sco that they drag it on for as long as possible. That way the can continue to try and collect fees, get coverage in the news and inflate their share price. How can they be silenced if they don't want to discuss matters sensibly?

Re:Any ideas?

[Ralph Yarro]

which begs the question. when it's all over if they lose do they have to give the money back???

Probably they won't have to repay any licence fees, at least not unless they're separately sued by the fee payers which is unlikely to happen. Those paying the fees know, or should know, that the case is unproven. SCO have been very careful to advise potential licencees to consult their own attorneys etc.

However, the end result of the IBM countersuit and the Red Hat suit is likely to extinguish any cash or other assets SCO has, whether form Linux licences or anywhere else, if SCO does lose. The arguable damage to those businesses is going to be massive and SCO just won't have that sort of money. And quite right too, if they aren't legally in the right then they deserve to lose everything over this.

Of course, dividends already paid out to investors and money paid to, for example, other Canopy companies for legitimate services is another matter entirely. I'm sure we'd all agree that that shouldn't be affected and that they should be allowed the proceeds of their legitimate investments.

Ralphie Yarro

Re:Any ideas?

[rkhalloran]

They obviously want to drag this out long enough for their options to mature so they can cash out; McSlime has already said 'a buyout would make this all go away'. I just assume IBM doesn't want to get any SCO-stink on them.

"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." - Aliens

Re:Any ideas?

[jd]

It'd be easy to settle this very quickly. Get a court order in the US, which restricts SCO's comments. It should be easy, now they've libelled both Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond. The First Amendment doesn't protect companies that much, and is probably even more restrictive on legal issues.

That SCO was fined recently for remarks on a German website is "technically" irrelevent, in the sense that it's a decision by courts elsewhere. However, no judge is going to be overly merciful towards those who are openly in contempt of court. (And aren't big, powerful and rich.)

I think it likely that even the threat of a gagging order would force SCO to either put up or shut up. SCO, right now, are simply trying to use threats to get cash on the cheap. Once that supply is put at risk, they won't have that choice. No threats, no income, and therefore no reason to continue the action, unless it's actually put on trial.

Re:Any ideas?

[hackstraw]

I wonder if anyone has an opinion of how long this SCO thing will go on for. It seems only to benefit sco that they drag it on for as long as possible.

Yes, it does benefit SCO to continue dragging this out. Check out sec.gov's info on the very regular and systematic selling of stocks by SCO execs. I don't know the details, but I have heard that there is some law that says something to the effect that insider trading is not able to be detected as insider trading so long as small regular sellings are done.

The top execs are dumping ~3% or so of thier stock at a time, and would like to keep the price inflated for as long as possible.

Re:Any ideas?

[platypus]

IBM has taken steps to silence them.
Go to groklaw and read up on IBM's subpoena agains canopy (not SCO!). IBM has done the right thing, in that they are avoiding beating an already dead horse (SCO) and going for its owner.

Canopy will happily lead SCO to corporate suicide, as long as they are able to cash in. IBM now has changed the rules of the game, because they have signaled they are going to drag Canopy from their VIP lounges onto the playing field.

The above subpoena is IMO the most interesting and important development in this whole SCO fiasco, and I'm really surprised that it doesn't get the attention it deserves.

Re:Any ideas?

[Malcontent]

Zowie!. They have asked for...

7. All documents concerning any agreement, understanding or communication with Microsoft, Sun, Computer Associates, Tarantella, AT&T, USL, HP or Novell, relating to UNIX or Linux.

Man this alone ought to scare the crap out of them or send them running to the shredder.

Maybe it time to start working on HURD

[acomj]

Or BSD.. or that open Beos..

More diversity in the open source arena would be a good hedge against one company (ie SCO) mucking it up with its FUD.

I like linux and all, but I'm
very very tired of SCO..

Re:Maybe it time to start working on HURD

[tuffy]

More diversity in the open source arena would be a good hedge against one company (ie SCO) mucking it up with its FUD.

This is more than about the Linux kernel's good reputation, though; this entire SCO debacle goes to the heart of the Linux development model. SCO is essentially saying "you guys are a bunch of irresponsible, un-accountable code thieves". Simply abandoning the Linux kernel not only affirms SCO's bullshit, but it hamstrings the entire process by which it was developed and makes the whole open source community look bad.

It's not about the kernel, it's about the process.

Re:Maybe it time to start working on HURD

[pyrrhonist]

BSD is dying, and the GNU Hurd will be finished Real Soon Now.

Re:Maybe it time to start working on HURD

[molarmass192]

Don't think for one second the ass monkeys at SCO wouldn't claim something similar against "the next big thing". What's needed here is a crushing defeat of SCO (I mean losing in court, fines, delisting, bankruptcy, and SEC criminal charges) to discourage any copy-cat claims in the future.

The problem is that the court system is notoriously slow and SCO is milking that lag to the best of it's ability. SCO's day in court will come in April 2005 and they're going to get slaughtered but until then the best we can do is to keep refuting any evidence they leak or make public and keep our cool. There's an old saying that "it's the quiet ones you have to watch out for" and I fully expect IBM to prove that true in 2005.

Godwin's Law!

[*weasel]

this one's done, next thread!

Doing their work for them

[j_dot_bomb]

I wonder if SCO intends all this publicity and open source community reply to do their work for them. Meaning: They dont know things like the lineage of certain code, so some of what they say is to get people to dig for them. Think of how much it would cost to figure some of these things out if you were paying people to do so.

Re:Doing their work for them

[wils0n]

No doubt it would cost quite a bit.

However, this fiasco is good for the OSS community because it is going through an exercise of contending with some thorny IP issues and ultimately the sturdiness of the GPL.

If the community uses this opportunity to learn more about auditing code and its genealogy it will be better prepared to deal with the next challenger, who will most likely be a bit more savvy than SCO.

parse_dir()

[hackstraw]

grep -r '^\s*$' * | wc -l

Shell independant, most likely much faster and easier to remember and type for future uses. I belive that the -r flag is only available for GNU grep.

"Warwick Toomey" should be Warren Toomey

[Colin Douglas Howell]

One of the submitters to this article got Warren Toomey's name wrong.

How meaningful.

[pla]

what if they just compared linewise? All those empty lines in the code would have the same content.

They wouldn't even need to include things like empty lines to get a large number of matches, in a line-by-line comparison...

How many of the following do you suppose exist in any large code base?

int i;

int j;

for(i=0;i<size;i++)

if(flag)

if(!flag)

while(!done)

while(count)

memset(data, 0, sizeof(data));
I could go on, but don't really need to. At least in most code I've seen, almost every single function would contain at least one of just what I presented above (taking into consideration a few other common variable names for similar purposes, of course).

Not an impressive way to measure plaguerism.

Re:How meaningful.

[WebMasterJoe]

I'm just hoping SCO never wrote a "Hello World" program, otherwise some lawyers may raid my freshman course records and have me arrested in six languages.

Re:How meaningful.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not an impressive way to measure plaguerism.

Not an impressive way to spell plagiarism.

Re:How meaningful.

[einer]

So you're that asshole who's codebase I've inherited! Who the hell bothers to comment i++; ?!?!

Die in a fire.

Trogdor Burninates Karma

[La Temperanza]

Oh SCO would just claim the virus code was their IP all along, and claim license fees from everyone who's still running it - people whose IP they can get easily as it keeps contacting their website! I've found out I cannot pass the day without reading the daily SCO item on slashdot. Dennis got into the act after Linus called his code ugly: damn, them be fightin' words!

This Comment was generated with the Comment-O-Matic for SCO Stories.

great news

[The Pim]

This must mean that Bruce Perens isn't afraid ESR is going to shoot him anymore.

Re:great news

[Davorama]

Considering this note just down the index from there. Yeah, I guess so. I'm curious what Bruce (maybe) did to start off the exchange.

Re:SCO is not the problem. Canopy is.

[Ralph Yarro]

Canopy own SCO. Darl McBride can't take a dump without Ralph J. Yarro's approval. FUD. Darl's contract permits him considerable leeway so far as dumping is concerned, provided that it is on Linux developers.

Don't forget "{" and "}"...

[Anonymous Coward]

You see an awfully lot of them alone on a line, too...

Re:Is it Wednesday already?

[anotherone]

Don't you mean, "It's 2:45, time for another SCO story!"

I'm Sonna Sue SCO!!!

[Mnemennth]

I have in my possession an 8" floppy containing 73,000 empty lies of code, borrowed from my desk during negotiations with SCO for my CP/M floppy disk defragging utility!
NO! You can't SEE the disk! Well, mabe a picture of it...

*Cackle*

Mnem

Re:I'm Sonna Sue SCO!!!

[Just Some Guy]

Well, mabe a picture of it...

Be sure to re-write the label in a Greek font first.

farrago?

[El]

farrago Ok, now I'll admit ESR has a bigger vocabulary than I do!

When you are in a hole...stop digging....

[Lord Custos]

Rather than defend the "don't ask, don't tell" Linux intellectual property policy that caused the SCO v IBM case, the Open Source community should focus on customers' needs. The Open Source community should assure that Open Source software has a solid intellectual property foundation that can give confidence to end users. - Darl McBride.

Darl, Darl, Darl...haven't you ever heard the adage "When you are in a hole, stop digging"?
You could climb out of the hole you dug yourself into. But you decided to spew more slander, libel and FUD instead.
Back in July, we offered you a firemans ladder
In August, we threw down a rope.
Are we going to have to send down spelunkers, or should we wait until you pop up in China?
(By the way, Darl, you don't want to end up in China. Thats a Linux country.)

Indemnity

[chmilar]

I think the paragraph on "indemnity" is interesting.

SCO should offer, to those who purchase their license, this guarantee of indemnity:

SCO guarantees that all IP associated with the SCO license is the sole, undisputed property of SCO. Should said property be shown to be actual property of a third party, SCO will pay all legal fees, rememdies and any other fees associated with any dispute arising from the third party.

Thus, SCO would show that they are certain they haven't infringed on GPL'd code (or any other party's code).

If SCO is unwilling to make such a guarantee of indemnity, it shows that they don't believe their own case.

A "DNA sequencing" tool may help to prove SCO wron

[Iphtashu Fitz]

Check out this article on eWeek about an interesting utility that Eric Raymond, the president of the Open Source Initiative, recently developed. It uses a method similar to DNA sequencing to analyze the history of a collection of source code trees. Mr. Raymond is quoted in the article as saying "I am grinning a grin that should frighten the thieves and liars at SCO out of a week's sleep."

GNU System V ?

[dostalgic]

Wouldn't it be poetic justice if the courts find that contamination went the other way, i.e., that System V contains Linux code and must be redistributed under GNU as a Linux variant. Just dreaming :)

Barratry, anyone? Extortion?

[TellarHK]

Would the conduct SCO has been engaging in to this point be enough to qualify for a charge of barratry? They've moved to provide no legal basis, are refusing all good will efforts to negotiate, and have engaged in a form of corporate slander of the worst sort. I would think that with the intensely corporation-friendly legal system we have here in the US, that there must be some method by which IBM and other vendors such as SGI and Linux distributors could make some pretty substantial claims of interference or possibly even extortion. Hell, if I recieved a bill from SCO, I'd most likely contact the feds to look into charging SCO with extortion - they're sending a bill for something they can't prove they own, and threatening consequences if I don't pay.

Re:Godwin's Law! - no

[renehollan]

I find the comparison of propaganda techniques used by SCO and the Nazi Minister of Propaganda not subject to Godwin's law, and actually, rather telling about the character of the players at SCO.

It is not a comparison between SCO and a Nazi regime (which would come under the thread-pruning of Godwin's Law).

In fact, I think that a propaganda technique that was effective in promoting genocide would be even more effective in helping to perpetuate a lesser crime (all other crimes, arguably, being lesser crimes than genocide).

As others have noted, SCO's propaga^H^H^H^H^Hess releases get significant exposure whereas reasoned responses from the likes of ESR, BP, et. al. get relatively little.

Well thought out????

[pulse2600]

"Their response does a good job of presenting many of the finer points we have been arguing about around here, but it's nice to see them in such a formal, well-thought-out letter."

You mean posting "$C0 $|_|x0r$" on slashdot doesn't qualify as well-thought-out?

interesting point

[aggieben]

interesting point you bring up.... instead of a simple line by line comparison, if they were really interested in seeing if any source was copied at all, maybe they should compare how many groups of 4 or more lines are the same? You're naturally going to have a lot of this:

int i;
int j;
...
...

but what about this taken all together as a single unit of comparison:

int i;
int j;
int (*f)(int arg1, char *arg2, void **data);
long long x = (v != NULL)?qd:tt;

The probability of finding common lines simply because the nature of the two code sets would decreate dramatically the more lines are grouped together. I would love to do a comparison of my own, but alas. SCO isn't interested in being forthcoming, only in market manipulation. SCO's strategy here isn't even to reconcile whatever wrongs they claim have been committed against them. Everything they're doing is simply an exit strategy. They recognized that they are history, so they're going out with a bang and getting as much [money] as they can before it the CFO signs the chapter 11 paperwork.

Acronym Fun

[schnarff]

I'm sure this won't get modded up high enough to ever be seen, but it's just come over me what SCO must really stand for: they're Smoking Crack, Obviously. Now we just need to get the DEA on them, since the SEC won't do the job. ;-)

"Linux topples college's IT Tower of Babel"

[eddy]

Linux marches on, despite of SCO. Data center makeover, part 1: Linux topples college's IT Tower of Babel.

Also, Dell today said they aren't and will not pay any licenses to SCO.

Sun on the other hand seems to be playing into the SCO "indemnification" FUD with a new java license?

SCO secretly hires Iraqi Information Minister..

[kev0153]

Now look at SCO. Every college student knows that you must change comments and variable names of the code you copy.

This Comment was also generated with the Comment-O-Matic for SCO Stories

Firearm enthusiast not equivalent to criminal...

[Dareth]

Having read the link of this parent, that was a simple "shot acroos the bow" meant as a warning. Not all gun owners settle their disputes with guns.

I find dex weapons alot more satisfactory... Just hope he aint too handy with a bat or hocky stick... or a plain old kitchen knife. Thems the things you should worry about.

And anyone threatens me, I gently remind them if they kill me, they got to take care of my wife.

Now that is an effective threat!

Re:A really nice response.

[winse]

Just a shame that it was co-authored by that gun-toting fucktard ESR who makes the lot of us seem like a bunch of hillbillies from Utah.

I am a hillbilly from Utah you insensitive clod.

100+k lines not meaningful

[.@.]

The bulk number of identical lines is, as others have pointed out, meaningless.

What would be interesting would be a count of the number of consecutive identical lines.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that number would be vanishingly small. Where non-zero, it's probably because both codebases contain code licensed under the UC Regents.

A Financial analyst who recommends SCOX

[Sarvagya]

Jonathan Cohen of JHC Capital Management recommends SCOX and thinks that "The company has the ability to earn in excess of $3 a share over the next couple of years," and that " The stock, which opened Tuesday at $16.52, is inexpensive".

CNBC

Re:A Financial analyst who recommends SCOX

[blibbleblobble]

"Jonathan Cohen of JHC Capital Management recommends SCOX and thinks that "The company has the ability to earn in excess of $3 a share over the next couple of years"

This Jonathan Cohen?

Big problem: Press Access.

[jbottero]

One of the biggest problems with this response to the SCO FUD campaign is that while SCO enjoys excellent access to the mainstream press, both IT press and popular press, the Open Source community responses do not. So, no one out there really hears the Open Source side. This is one good reason that McBride et al keep releasing all this patently absurd hogwash; they know the press will bite, and ignore the other side.

Re:Big problem: Press Access.

[tomhudson]

Not true. This weeks' issue of Computing Canada (industry trade mag - not a newsstand journal) has it on the front page: Canadian Linux users prepare to battle SCO. The Montreal Gazette has carried it in the business section. Google News regularly posts links to slashdot when mentioning SCO.

It's only PR Newswire that keeps spreading SCOs shit around w/o rebuttals. But then again, that's what they're paid to do.

If you're not happy w. SCOs' fud, there's nothing stopping you from calling up your local news writers and giving them the low-down :-)

Re:Big problem: Press Access.

[DGolden]

No, thrse days you just have to pay someone to bug (and, mostly, bribe) the right people for you - I think (could be wrong) SCO is paying Schwartz PR to run their little black propaganda campaign for them.

Re:Big problem: Press Access.

[ShinmaWa]

It's only PR Newswire that keeps spreading SCOs shit around w/o rebuttals

Well.. them and Reuters

Re:Big problem: Press Access.

[nihilogos]

The Perens, Raymond letter is covered in this mainstream press article.

The Sydney Morning Herald is one of Australia's largest newspapers.

Indemnity from IP infringement

[MSBob]

There is a very interesting factoid with regards to the IP indemnity issue that SCO likes to bring up that Eric and Bruce mention in this article:

"...the warranties and indemnities offered by SCO and others such as Microsoft are carefully worded so that the vendor's liability is limited to the software purchase price, They thus offer no actual shield against liability claims or damages. "

Don't know about the rest of slashdot but I was not aware of this particular string. Actually I don't see why most GPL developers couldn't offer the exact same type of indemnity: refund on the purchase price in case there are IP violations. I think they should do it just to see SCO's reaction to it. Should be quite hillarious.

Reminds me of an old lawyer joke....

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

Q) When Darl McBride is in a hole up to his neck in sand, what do you have?

A) Not enough sand.

Re:Go Big Blue!

[rking]

Generally accurate. However, taking something does at least strongly imply that the previous person no longer has it. If I make an exact replica of your car, I don't think you would claim I'd taken your car. If that included replicating your copyrighted paintwork I don't think you could reasonably claim that I'd 'taken' your copyright. You'd still have copyright.

Certainly as a matter of law, copying something is not the same as theft. Copyright infringement is covered by different laws to theft and carries different penalties.

Of course, if someone wants to use the word for emotional impact then when challenged they can always say they were speaking figuratively. Like saying prices are "extortionate" or "daylight robbery" or that someone is "getting away with murder" doesn't mean those offences are literally involved. It only get amusing when someone is challenged and tries to insist that copying something really is theft.

Mainstream press reporting of SCO maddening

[Col_Panic]

First would like to say thanks to Bruce and Eric for this response. What I would like to bitch about is that most of the points that they made in their response were things that any real journalist would have actually checked. The McBride letter got plastered all over "news" sites on the net without any real challenge to the "facts" contained within. The SCO Regime knows that "reporters" for online "magazines" pretty much cut and paste any drivel that is sent out as a corporate press release. Slap on a headline and a few "this person said"s and a couple of "according to"s and blam you have an article. (Witness how MicroSofts latest funded "study" got plastered all over.) Of the online tech "news" portals, only The Register seems to EVER bother to check any of the "facts" that are reported in these press releases. Had any real journalism been going on here, these rags would have bothered to check at least SOME of the outlandish claims that SCO makes, or at least do something like make the headline "SCO makes more outlandish claims" or gosh even remind people that SCO has yet to release anything resembling proof. But because SCO knows they can get any outlandish claims published (and they WILL be published because the companies that publish them know that MicroSoft WANTS them published) and will subsequently drive up their stock price.

It is a press release already.

[SLot]

NewsFactor already has it showing up as a press release, available here.

Re:It is a press release already.

[mflaster]

Interesting - this shows up under SGI and IBM - but not SCOX!!!!

If you can do it with silence...

[ChrisKnight]

Wasn't there a recent copyright dispute where one artist had a track of silence on his CD, and was sued by the estate of another artist because they claimed copyright on a track of silence?

Since that was settled out of court, I can see where SCO would think they at least had a chance of getting a settlement over the empty lines in the kernel.

Oh, shit... I have two empty lines in this post. Should I send SCO a buck?
*
*
-Chris

Translation

[Roadkills-R-Us]

Wow. That's a well-crafted piece of literature. Unspecting high school freshmen will one day have to read that and dissect it as part of "US Literature". Assuming the schools can still teach reading by then.

Meanwhile, I ran the article through Babelfish:

Dear Mr. McBride,

You suck.

With all due respect,
The Open Source Community

Re:SCO is not the problem. Canopy is.

[HiThere]

My understanding is that they own something like 5% of Troll Tech. Yeah, it makes me queasy, too. But it's not like the Trolls could do anything to stop them.

Open letter to McBride

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

Over at Groklaw there is a large set of comments forming in the hopes of drafting an open letter response to McBride's. It is my hope when they are finished that the /. editors will publish the text of said letter in an effort to debunk his claims and outright lies and misquotes.

I tried to post my comment on there but for some reason it wouldn't take. I offer my services to mirror a PDF or HTML copy of the response once it is finished. I hope others would follow suit, and perhaps some of the readers here with connections can get it published on high-profile sites or even pass it along to CIO/CEO/CTO type people in an effort to dispel SCO FUD.

SCO does what no other vendor has ever done...

[weave]

Wow, after all the religious wars on slashdot over microsoft, linux, apple, star wars, diablo, etc, etc, we have finally found a topic that everyone agrees on -- SCO sucks.

Surely SCO must have some plants that can post some positive SCO-defending material here?!

Impressive & Professional

[__aagmrb7289]

We should all take a look at how this letter was written, and why, and try to apply it to our own comments in this forum. Thanks for the great example, guys!

Re:SCO is not the problem. Canopy is.

[squiggleslash]

Yes, that one. It is not a huge stake (between Canopy directly and SCO who also possess shares in their name IIRC I believe it's less than 7%) but it's still worrying.

TrollTech needs to find someone who'll buy them out of Canopy completely.

Just to point it out....

[lysium]

That crazy gun-nut has done more for the OSS movement than you ever have or ever will, Mr. dhowells. Care to explain why you should even be compared to Utah hillbillies?

What is with the presumptive use of 'us' in your posts? Speak for yourself, and do not hide in (or speak for) a nonexistant crowd.

=========

File a complaint with the FTC

[Slashdolt]

File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. Mention how you feel that they are attempting to extort money from you. The FTC DOES take these matters seriously. If they receive many complaints about a particular company, they will be very inclined to launch an investigation. The mere mention of an FTC investigation is not good news for a company, nor its stock.

File a complaint online

Take a more active role in this. Don't just vent your frustrations on /. where no one outside our community will hear.

-- Slash

Slander? Libel?

[siskbc]

Slander is spoken. Libel is written. He's guilty of libel.

Darl also does interviews.

Re:Slander? Libel?

[john82]

Darl also does interviews.

But does he do Bar Mitzvah's and mall openinings?

Re:SCO is not the problem. Mormonism is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every Mormon I know (and I know a few) who is in the Tech business is disgusted by Darl McBride and his dishonest shenanigans. Connecting Mormonism with his actions is erroneous.

"What comes of litigation? Poverty and degradation to any community that will encourage it. Will it build cities, open farms, build railroads, erect telegraph lines and improve a country? It will not; but it will bring any community to ruin." -Brigham Young, JD 11:259.

Re:A really nice response.

[StenD]

Just a shame that it was co-authored by that gun-toting fucktard ESR who makes the lot of us seem like a bunch of hillbillies from Utah.

As opposed to the sterling image you present with this comment?

What do you say?

[MuParadigm]

"Hey, he's got child porn on his workstation!"

Re:SCO is not the problem. Mormonism is?

[RealisticWeb.com]

I don't the the poster was making any connection to the LDS church, that just happened to be in the quote that he put in. I have to agree with you though, religion has nothing to do with this whole thing and I find it unfortuate that the Mormon church (or any church for that matter) could get associated with this kind of nonscence. Let's keep religion out of it. Yes, the company is in Utah, a lot of them are probably Mormon, but if they were in Mexico, they would probably all be catholic. So what? It doen't have anything to do with the phyco Mc'bribe' or the actions of SCO.

What we really need is an.....

[3seas]

Annual B.S. Award... like the vaporware award.

If anyone wants to start it up, I nominate Bush for first place, Blair for second place and MS for third (credit goes for teaching Bush how to control the media and claim everyone supports him, by telling everyone that.....)

Of course I nominate SCO for fourth place. For certainly trhey make the top 5 list.

Consultancy opportunity

[Mostly a lurker]

Dear Mr McBride,

I have a proposal to make to you that I believe could be in our mutual interests. I have been following with interest your license dispute with IBM, together with your attempt to keep us all informed through regular press releases and interviews. Unfortunately, for all your efforts, the result has been unsatisfactory as the information you have presented has consistently contained rather severe inaccuracies. I can assure you that I (like most in the open source movement) am very symathetic to your problem. I understand that SCO originally did not have a copy of much of the source code it owns (that you believe has been copied wholesale into Linux). As such, it is understandable that you would know little about it.

I believe SCO has now managed to acquire a copy of the Unix V source code. This is a good first step, but not enough. I believe you now need access to someone who can evaluate where this code came from and which portions, if any, may be regarded as SCO intellectual propery. I would like to offer my services to assist your organisation in this matter. As someone who can read C code and knows how to use the google search engine I am eminently qualified for this task.

I am sure you will wish to take advantage of this offer without delay. It must be a matter of great concern to you that, for all your efforts, you have thus far been unable to accurately present the situation to your shareholders, customers and the general public.

Yours etc.

Been here enough...

[Thinkit3]

Basically, "The Man" has been given unlimited mod powers to further the corporate conservative agenda.

ESR doing his own source comparison to SCO UNIX...

[braddock]

I haven't seen this anywhere yet, but yesterday Raymond apparently announced that he had written a "Comparator" program to compare source trees and that now he is 'grinning a grin that should frighten the thieves and liars at SCO out of a week's sleep...'

Remember, ESR has previously stated that he has a copy of the SCO Unix source tree. He could theoretically now do the full analysis.

Here is the Linux Today article about Raymond's Comparator:

-braddock

A way to deal with SCO

[grek]

Here's an idea for those with some spare cash and the courage of your convictions. Buy a SCO share! You are now a shareholder and have rights as such to ask questions of your board at the next shareholders meeting. In fact why not get together with your friends and others and all buy one share and take turns to ask Darl and the rest of the board difficult questions. Obviously this is cheapest and easiest for people who live near SCO headquarters.

These are some of the tactics that comedian and activist Mark Thomas used, along with others, in the (eventually) sucessful fight to stop the Ilisu Dam project in Turkey - and they were fighting a lot more than little old SCO (see http://www.ilisu.org.uk/ to see the hit list)

Torvalds to McBride: Please grow up.

[Anonymous Coward]

The following has been cut and pasted from the InfoWorld article "Torvalds to SCO: Negotiate What?"

--- cut here ---

Open letter to Darl McBride -- please grow up.

Dear Darl,

Thank you so much for your letter.

We are happy that you agree that customers need to know that Open Source is legal and stable, and we heartily agree with that sentence of your letter. The others don't seem to make as much sense, but we find the dialogue refreshing.

However, we have to sadly decline taking business model advice from a company that seems to have squandered all its money (that it made off a Linux IPO, I might add, since there's a nice bit of irony there), and now seems to play the US legal system as a lottery. We in the Open Source group continue to believe in technology as a way of driving customer interest and demand.

Also, we find your references to a negotiating table somewhat confusing, since there doesn't seem to be anything to negotiate about. SCO has yet to show any infringing IP in the Open Source domain, but we wait with bated breath for when you will actually care to inform us about what you are blathering about.

All of our source code is out in the open, and we welcome you point to any particular piece you might disagree with.

Until then, please accept our gratitude for your submission,

Yours truly,

Linus Torvalds

This just in ... Linus' reply

[miniver]

There's an article over on Infoworld that includes an Open Letter from Linus Torvalds on the situation. I won't quote the whole article, but here's the letter:

Open letter to Darl McBride -- please grow up.

Dear Darl,

Thank you so much for your letter.

We are happy that you agree that customers need to know that Open Source is legal and stable, and we heartily agree with that sentence of your letter. The others don't seem to make as much sense, but we find the dialogue refreshing.

However, we have to sadly decline taking business model advice from a company that seems to have squandered all its money (that it made off a Linux IPO, I might add, since there's a nice bit of irony there), and now seems to play the US legal system as a lottery. We in the Open Source group continue to believe in technology as a way of driving customer interest and demand.

Also, we find your references to a negotiating table somewhat confusing, since there doesn't seem to be anything to negotiate about. SCO has yet to show any infringing IP in the Open Source domain, but we wait with bated breath for when you will actually care to inform us about what you are blathering about.

All of our source code is out in the open, and we welcome you point to any particular piece you might disagree with.

Until then, please accept our gratitude for your submission,

Yours truly,

Linus Torvalds

Dear Mr. Jameson:

[burgburgburg]

Dear Mr. Jameson,

Please keep up your insightful attacks against that criminal Spider-Man. Yours is the only paper that properly recognizes the menace this individual represents to our fair NYC. We applaud your bold stance.

All the best,
Green Goblin, Esq.

P.S. Muahahahahahahaha

I got a good laugh...

[Stephen Samuel]

In feedback to the LinuxWorld article, one reader wrote: Just because SCO has been unable, or more realistically unwilling to develop this component of their business to meet the rapidly growing demand, does not mean that the opportunity does not exist and that it is not being capatalized upon now, as we speak.

That comment made me laugh -- not because I disagree with it, but because it made me realize domething:

Mr. McBride wants the OS community to come up with a business model for using open source that he can wrap his greedy little mind around, because he wants to usurp that idea too.

It's not like we're expecting him to come up with an inventive idea, are we?

Re:Go Big Blue!

[Wylfing]

Generally accurate.

No. Not accurate. From the grandparent:

So, I think steal applies [to alleged copied code in Linux], at least according to dictionary.com, because to steal is to take property, and property can be somethign intangible like a copyright.

Absolute hogwash. If you were to abscond with the copyright itself, then perhaps you would have stolen something, because only one entity can claim to have the copyright on a work. However, making a copy does not constitute theft. Please, please research common law on property. Property theft is a crime because it deprives the rightful owner of his possessions. "Offenses" such as copyright infringement are not crimes.

Corrupted Capitalism

[Stephen Samuel]

Adam Smith's seminal treatise on capitalism (based on multiple small businesses in an open market) has often been misquoted as a justification for global multinationalism. There is another aspect to his work that I'd like to adress here.

One of his presumptions is that, 'In advancing his own welfare, a businessman will also advance the welfare of his entire community'. To reverse that logic, I'd say that to powerfully advance his own welare as a 'good' capitalist, a businessman should necessarily benefit his entire community.

In eiter case, Smith's treatise presumes that people play in a reasonably fair manner within the constraints of capitalism. He did not take into account the effects of what I would refer to as meta-game shenanigans like using legal technicalities to usurp the works of others (and thus provide a disincentive to advancing the welfare of the whole.).

McBride and his allies at SCO are an example of these metagame players -- attempting to use rules far outside the domain of the market to shift ownership of the resources being created without really creating any of his own. Although he hids behind a mask of 'last defender of the free enterprise system', he is in fact one of those most earnestly undermining that system from within.

"Patriotism is tha last refuse of the scoundrel". . - (reference anyone?)

Then why no intellectual property tax?

[yerricde]

properties such as copyrights and trademarks

If copyrights are considered property, then why don't copyright owners have to pay a property tax?

Rights to blank lines? Harken to 4'33 && J

[wherley]

blank lines in code are as
silence in music ...remember John Cage was paid for infringement on
his 4'33 track of silence. :)

"IP that no one owns and is free"

[GQuon]

From the Kevin Bedell article:

This new business model is based on companies and individuals increasing productivity and reducing costs by collaborating on 'shared' IP that no one owns and is free.

Well, not quite. The IP is still owned by the contributor. It's just irrevocably licensed through the GNU Public License or another "free" license.
"Open Source" is not in the public domain, but for practical purposes it is not owned. You will only get in trouble if you publish your derivative work without abiding by the license terms.

Did SCO inherit AT&T's copyright on blank line

[jc42]

Back in the 1980's, I was just one of many people who noticed that AT&T claimed to have a copyright on blank lines. You can see one of these claims at http://web.42.net/true.html. Google for /bin/true and you'll find more.

This is the good old "true" program, which on Sys/V was an empty shell script. It works; it does nothing, and then since there were no errors, it exist with a zero status. Some drone at AT&T obviosly wrote a script to run through all their scripts and add an AT&T copyright notice. This also added two blank lines (only one in some later versions), leading to the observation that AT&T really was claiming to own the rights to blank lines.

One fun thing is that their copyrighted version of /bin/true went through many versions, all of which contained only blank lines and a copyright notice.

Another fun thing that I did was to post the code for /bin/true on several newsgroups as responses to discussions, pointing out that I had posted a copyrighted AT&T program in its entirety, and challenging AT&T to prosecute me. For some mysterious reason, I never heard from them.

There was also an AT&T copyright notice in /bin/false, which contained only the command "exit 255", so if you do that in any script, you are also inviolation of AT&T/SCO's claimed copyright.

Anyway, it does seem that the SCO gang considers /bin/true to be part of the IP that they inherited from AT&T. This is presumably the basis of the majority of their claim that there are a million lines of stolen SCO code in linux. When you add in all the lines that contain only /*, */ and //, you can easily get to a million lines.

It could be fun if they actually made the mistake of pressing this claim in court.

Actually,

[Sevn]

You are underestimating the press love of a good mudslinging. The savefarscape.com people organized themselves pretty damn well and ended up getting repeated mention on CNN and newswires. Lots of national publications picked the story up. Seems to me it would be a lot easier to get time with a story like this.

Torvald's open letter to Darl McBride

[G3ckoG33k]

I don't know if I have missed this here on Slashdot, but here it is (again?):

"Open letter to Darl McBride -- please grow up. Dear Darl, Thank you so much for your letter. We are happy that you agree that customers need to know that Open Source is legal and stable, and we heartily agree with that sentence of your letter. The others don't seem to make as much sense, but we find the dialogue refreshing. However, we have to sadly decline taking business model advice from a company that seems to have squandered all its money (that it made off a Linux IPO, I might add, since there's a nice bit of irony there), and now seems to play the US legal system as a lottery. We in the Open Source group continue to believe in technology as a way of driving customer interest and demand. Also, we find your references to a negotiating table somewhat confusing, since there doesn't seem to be anything to negotiate about. SCO has yet to show any infringing IP in the Open Source domain, but we wait with bated breath for when you will actually care to inform us about what you are blathering about. All of our source code is out in the open, and we welcome you point to any particular piece you might disagree with. Until then, please accept our gratitude for your submission, Yours truly, Linus Torvalds"



As seen in an InfoWorld article.

McDonalds has nothing to say about SCO

[shanen]

I think the only thing that will stop SCO now is bankruptcy. The only question is whether or not they lose the lawsuit first. Actually, considering Bush v. Gore, I suppose it is possible they could win it, but the more you learn about the history of the code in question, the less likely it seems. More likely someone else can sue SCO for prior IP violations.

Anyway, on the topic of fostering SCO's bankruptcy, don't forget that they do have a revenue stream besides stock speculation. True, more like a trickle in relative terms, but still worth dealing with if it will generate some more bad press. AFaIK, the big drip in that other revenue stream is McDonalds, and I still think they deserve a boycott. M$-style motto:

McDonalds: You deserve a boycott today!

By the way, I contacted McDonalds to ask them if they are still SCO's star customers, and they came back with the stone wall. Or maybe it was just a really ignorant marketroid?

a little silly...

[Dave_bsr]

So...ESR is bad in general, because he likes guns, and has a collection. He hasn't really gunned anyone down yet. Nope. Or even really shot at anyone. Or, say, facilitated weapons to other people so THEY could hurt other people. So, really, all the evil he's done is...not much...um...at all? So he likes guns. Guns can kill people, or destroy. But they also can defend. You didn't see anyone fighting Hitler with bows and arrows, did you? so...anyways, guns are not all bad. And having guns doesn't make you bad.

Ok, so if guns don't necessarily make you bad, then i'd say ESR's contributions to Linux are tremendous, and thus he's a pretty cool guy in my book. And the fact that his beliefs aren't those of everyone else in OSS makes me a bit more comfortable hanging out with the slashbots - we aren't all liberal, or all conservative, or all anything else. I think that's cool.

And comparing owning guns and advocating gun owner's rights to raping, ravaging, and defiling children sexually is just idiotic. That's lunacy dude.

Only the copyright itself is property

[riptalon]

Even defined as to "take property without permission" and with the loose definition it still doesn't work because it is the copyright or patent etc. that is the property, not the work or idea that it covers. Someone owns the copyright to the text of a book, they don't own the text itself. You can probably think of some way to steal a copyright (most likely involving fraud I guess) but you can't steal a copyrighted work (other than a physical representation). You can copy a work without permission and so infringe on the copyright but this is entirely different. Copyright infringement was only a civil matter until recently after all. If it was stealing then it would be covered under existing laws against theft but it took all the recent ammendments to the copyright legislation to make it a crime.

Anyway before you start quoting dictionary definitions you have to realize that dictionaries are descriptive not proscriptive. They just describe the current general usage of words rather than proscribing their definative meaning. Since most people are idiots, even if there wasn't deliberate attempts to reshape the meanings of words, a description of how a word is generally used is likely to be contaminated by the idiocy of the general public. When you add in the fact that the media, who are the enemy here, are in a perfect position to manipulate the general usage of words to be whatever they want, and you see that Orwell's Newspeak is far from fiction.

SCO claims: the new cold fusion?

[cfassnacht]

Trying to create a miracle source of value that others can't seem to reproduce? You may be an ambitious though misguided resident of Utah. Unfortunately, peer review will be catching up with you. Alternate career plans are strongly recommended.

My stupid opinion

[md65536]

In SCO's letter they make it sound like it's an "Open Source Community" thing to use copyrighted code. If someone at SGI did this, why does SCO think that they wouldn't put copyright-protected code into closed, proprietary code? What makes them think that other closed-source corporations don't do this? (I suppose to answer my own question, those corporations would be more directly liable for such copyright violations, so they care more about preventing it, obfuscating it, or hiding it).

Open-source development cares a lot about copyright stuff. The GNU license list notes which licenses are compatible with the GPL. It's not like they think that any code can be and becomes GPL licensed, regardless of where it came from, regardless of what previous licenses may have applied.

So, copyright violation occurs in other software development models. What's weird is that SCO is going after individual users. When someone sues MS over something stolen, they sue the company, they don't tell users of MS products that they have to pay additional licensing fees.

Linux for business

[Safiire Arrowny]

Since when were all the Kernel developers making Linux for businesses? In the open letter, Daryl was all about saying that we're damaging our hopes and dreams for Linux in businesses.

I don't know about you, but I could give a rats ass about weather or not the business world finds Linux acceptable or not. I highly doubt the developers and all the other OSS folks or me will stop developing and working on Linux regardless of what anyone says or thinks.

It's nice to have drivers from businesses that make hardware and all that, but we didn't have them before and we surely shouldn't become reliant on them.

Therefore all the crap that Daryl is trying to use to scare us with, shouldn't work.

Personally, I think that this stupid obsession with getting everyone and their mom to use Linux as their desktop OS at home and in business is going to hurt Linux more than anything because of the comprimises that will need to be implemented to get them aboard.

No worries over interview "stolen lines"

[bobKali]

At least McBride doesn't have to worry about interview infringement over "stealing lines" from the Bruce Perens interview. Taking them that far out of context oughta qualify them as being his own and not Perens's thoughts.

All well and good, but...

[Trogre]

...it doesn't seem to have affected SCO's stock price.

SCO claims Bible verse stolen from V code

[Anonymous Coward]

McBride is saying that 1 million words has been stolen from System V code into the Bible. McBride is also closely watching Tora's words too.

Very soon MCBridge will send a 10 billion law suits to churches all around the world and even call on Jesus for justice.

McBride is offering all churches $1000 license fee to legalize their Bible.

As always, Linus rocks!

[debest]

...but we wait with bated breath for when you will actually care to inform us about what you are blathering about.

Once again, a quip from Linus that is wickedly funny. The perfect combination of politeness and dry sarcasm that never fails to make me chuckle.

I really ought to read his autobiography. I bet I'd find it hysterical, especially if he was a bit pissed off while writing it.

Don't DDoS - manipulate stock instead

[puzzled]

You /.ers are fairly clueless - two of you who haven't bathed in a month(each) can bring SCO's network to its knees, but the other 79,998 regular users can't each take five minutes to join http://ragingbull.com and pound this stuff into the heads of every dummy who is buying this stock because of its 'momentum'.

Get on that stock board, post a message with the subject "SCOX ==> $0, read this", and link it to the latest slashdot article on the topic.

If it is a genuine pump and dump there are a handful of paid cheerleaders out there who are trying to bury any sensible discussion so the 'marks' don't see it by filling that board with SCOX rah rah rah nonsense. Amp the signal to noise ratio to the point where the cluelesss day traders know this thing is a pig in a poke and you'll do way more damage than ranting on slashdot about the subject.

Re:SCO is still benefiting from open source

[foonf]

Is it possible for many of these open source projects to modify their licenses such that they specifically exclude SCO distributing them?

Yes, it is possible, but:

* It would make the license GPL-incompatible, at the very least

* For a large project, every single developer would have to consent to the relicensing of their contribution.

* It could not apply retroactively to older versions.

More feasible, IMHO, is dropping support for SCO's platforms. They don't appear to really have enough developers to reverse the changes if they are deep enough. But even this isn't a perfect idea, since after all it punishes users of SCO, rather than SCO themselves, and could hurt the public perception of the "open source community".

Open Letter

[MuParadigm]

For anyone who is interested, my own Open Response, previously posted here, has been *extensively* revised.

You can view it on my journal page here.

It's already over...

[klaxor]

If you wish to make a respectable case for contamination, show us the code. Disclose the overlaps. Specify file by file and line by line which code you believe to be infringing, and on what grounds. We will swiftly meet our responsibilities under law, either removing the allegedly infringing code or establishing that it entered Linux by routes which foreclose proprietary claims.

IANAL, but IIRC, in order for a copyright violation to be actionable (that is, to be able to be brought before the court), the copyright holder must show that they engaged in "due diligence" to prevent the infringement of copyright - that is, they did everything short of suing to ensure that their copyright was protected. Here you have the publishers of the "work in question" making an open commitment to ensure that copyrights are upheld and no infringing code is included into the Linux kernel. Which means that SCO will have to work with ESR and Perens to reveal the "offending lines", or risk losing any claim to copyright infringement, however valid.

This is the worst thing that could happen to SCO. If they comply, they lose any claim over the Linux kernel, as any offending lines will be rewritten. If they fail to respond, they forfeit the current Linux kernel - even if it contains their copyrighted code! Once given an offer of remediation, the copyright holder loses the right to bring a suit before the courts.

If anything, this has shown not the weakness of the Open Source model, but rather its strength. Unlike proprietary code, in which a user could unknowingly be in possession of another's IP, (and hence, liable for royalties to said third party...), the openness of the OS model ensures that any third-party copyright claims are effectively null and void.