Slashdot Mirror
Back To SCO
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..."
+5 for the poor coward....
:30 UTC (0 Talkback[s]) (12873 reads)
Response to SCO's Open Letter
Sep 10, 2003, 05
(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
You can copy them, but not steal them. Unless you delete the lines that were there, but I doubt that happened. How illogical.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
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
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.
Does this mean I have to remove all the blank lines from all my code to avoid being sued by SCO?
Go hug some trees.
And what about the "This page intentionally left blank" world?
Any page claiming it is blank is lying.
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
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.
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
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.
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.
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
Surely SCO must have some plants that can post some positive SCO-defending material here?!
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
"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.
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.
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
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.
/bin/true went through many versions, all of which contained only blank lines and a copyright notice.
/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.
/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.
/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.
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
Another fun thing that I did was to post the code for
There was also an AT&T copyright notice in
Anyway, it does seem that the SCO gang considers
It could be fun if they actually made the mistake of pressing this claim in court.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.