Slashdot Mirror
SGI Code Changes Not Enough, Says SCO
yeremein writes "According to this vnunet.com article, SCO's code changes Update: 10/04 20:51 GMT by T : (This should read "SGI's" rather than "SCO's.") removing arguably System-V-related code from SGI's Linux submissions is 'not enough.' According to Blake Stowell of SCO,
'Making minor amendments to its XFS file system doesn't cure the breach. SGI must do more as outlined [in the August letter] to cure all of their breaches.' But later on in the article, we learn what was outlined in the August letter:
'We don't believe that SGI has taken all of the steps necessary to cure all of the breaches, and in fact in our letter to them, we state "SGI's breaches of these agreements cannot be cured."' So SCO essentially told SGI, 'You're in violation of our contract and unless you remedy the violations, we'll pull your UNIX license. Oh, BTW, you can't remedy the violations.' This looks to me like the clearest example yet of how SCO is acting in bad faith." Read on below for another snippet of SCO strangeness.
An anonymous reader writes "As many are aware, SCO has sought (and got) a 4 month extension to its IBM lawsuit. According to the Salt Lake Tribune: 'SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said Tuesday that he understood the extension is being sought "for the purpose of gaining documents from IBM related to the patents they claim. . . . Some of the patents aren't even filed with the U.S. Patent Office, as far as we can learn."' I thought this was worth looking at, and quickly found that the patents in question are 4,814,746, 4,821,211, 4,953,209, and 5,805,785 - which can be found by typing in their numbers in this USPTO form."
Absolutely. What do we want, a world in which anyone can steal your intellectual property, and YOU have to scour the world to find these thieves, and the worst that can happen to THEM is to have to stop using your stuff?
The warez people who get caught aren't just told to "stop infringing", they get to do some jail time. In the same way, SGI should get punished for this, and not merely have to "stop infringing".
I've been doing your sister the entire time you've been reading about SCO, so if you want to know, just ask.
No, I refuse ! What is this "Slashdot: news for nerds, stuff about SCO that doesn't matter" or what ???
Film at 11 for me.
1. It doesn't matter whether it was intentional or not. SGI violated SCO's copyright.
2. It doesn't matter how much code it was. SGI violated SCO's copyright.
3. It doesn't matter if they've stopped doing it or not. SGI violated SCO's copyright.
SGI is gonna take it in the shorts over this one. Seen their latest 10-K? SCO's gonna put them out of business for good.
Linux is already dead. It'll be a shame to lose IRIX, too.
News for turds, Stuff that splatters
Have you ever gone a couple days without showering, stuck your hands down the front of your pants, and taken a whiff? Reeks, doesn't it? The sweaty balls smell (SBS), as I like to call it. Well, my penis smells like that and more. You see, I had sex last night, and the smell of dried up cum and vaginal fluid is pretty strong. Couple that with the SBS, and it's like a party in my pants. I need to take a shower. Too bad I'm too busy reading Slashdot and playing Wolfenstein.
There are actual definitions of what constitutes an actual infringement of copyright. 200 lines of code, unless in a single block, don't apply.
Uh... what? That's completely untrue. Infringement is infringement. There's no minimum number of lines required.
If such a small segment (out of the whole) was allowed to be prosecutable under copyright law, it would be feasable to copyright the use of single words, such as 'a' and 'the' -- or even letters for that matter.
You can only copyright that which is original, dipshit. Did you make up the word "the?"
They have to have prove that a guy at SGI did this -- such as video footage, etc.
Of course they don't. That's so much bullshit. SGI is legally liable for whatever they put their name on. If they released code that belongs to somebody else, they're guilty. Period. They have to pay damages. Period.
SCO is honestly setting themselves for the bitch-slap of the century (and it's just 3 years into it!!!).
You don't know shit. Sorry, but it's true. You're a real grade-A nimrod.
Linux is FAR, FAR from dead.
Yawn. Who's adopting Linux now? With no indemnity, nobody's using it. It's deader than a doornail.
NUMA doesn't exist on 99.9999999999% of the world's computers
I'm continually amazed by how stupid you are.
So WHAT THE @!#$ does SCO make claims to that actually matters for all but the most obscure of cases?
Let me explain it using small words, little boy. It matters because (1) everybody who's presently using Linux 2.4 or 2.5 has to stop, or pay a license fee. And, more importantly, it matters because people are not idiots. They won't get fooled this way again.
And, having released "Ancient UNIX" under BSD, it's easy to argue that a reasonably competent peanut could have used that code, and adapted it to modern usage -- and was not actually copied.
Yeah, sure. The million-monkeys argument. Somebody just happened to reproduce SCO code exactly, character for character, including comments.
Whatever.
You're just a fucking moron.