Slashdot Mirror
SCO Code to be Protected in Closed Court
An anonymous reader writes "SCO public relations director Blake Stowell today said that the company had secured permission to present the code alleged to have found its way into Linux to a closed court. Once again SCO is refusing to tell Linux users just what code they claim is infringing on their IP rights, while still threatening to sue corporations running Linux."
The question, of course, is whether the claim is true or not -- it is coming from SCO, after all. There's a good chance it could be true, though, because a big part of SCO's claim is for trade secret violations -- which require the alleged secret to, well, remain secret (disclosure does not effect copyright, but it does trade secrets). It only makes sense for them to seek a protective order, and it does not really effect the case from the judge's and lawyers' standpoint. But that doesn't make it suck any less for the rest of us who want to see the code for ourselves.
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Mark Twain
My thoughts exactly... although I don't see where this is 'bad for linux' exactly... just makes sure that the case is longer and more drawn out because IBM and Co. will not have the benifit of the OS community to do leg work to find the credit for contributed code. SCO learned the last time they publicly showed any code how quickly the OS community could find the true roots of the shown code.
Judge Wells seems to have shown some contempt directed at SCO. She specifically commented about their providing the SysV code to IBM in a useless printed paper format. When Kevin explained that they knew IBM did something wrong based on IBM's public statements (and therefore needed all the code to figure out exactly what), she replied that IBM wasn't the only party making statements to the press!
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
In other words, this is typical SCO FUD and misrepresentation of the facts, and in this case, facts that are already old and well known to those following the case. SCO has not won any victory here; quite the contrary. The alleged code (if it exists at all) will almost certainly be available after some very standard legal procedures.
There is truly nothing to see here; zdnet got suckered by a SCO press release. Regrettable, as they should have known better by now, but aside from allowing Darl et. al. to defraud some day traders and invenstors for another few days, it really doesn't amount to anything at all.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The executive board of SCO consists of:
Darl C. McBride
Chris Sontag
Robert K. Bench
Reg Broughton
Sean Wilson
Larry Gasparro
Jeff Hunsaker
Ralph J. Yarro III
Steve Cakebread
Edward E. Iacobucci
R. Duff Thompson
Darcy Mott
K. Fred Skousen
Thomas P. Raimondi, Jr
If you see any of these people in years following the implosion of SCO, do not give them a job. Do not enter into contracts with them. Do not loan them your car. They have proven themselves incapable of planning for the future of a company and incapable of behaving like mature partners in the sphere of business. At a time when SCO desperately needs to be investing in research and development, these people are plunging the company into bankruptcy. They're taking a tremendous gamble with their shareholders money, a gamble which even if successful would only mean residuals on existing Linux implementations in the US, and a painful migration for everyone else to OpenBSD. They're betting everyone else's money on a long shot, and should be held accountable for their irresponsible actions.
Once again, those names are
Darl C. McBride
Chris Sontag
Robert K. Bench
Reg Broughton
Sean Wilson
Larry Gasparro
Jeff Hunsaker
Ralph J. Yarro III
Steve Cakebread
Edward E. Iacobucci
R. Duff Thompson
Darcy Mott
K. Fred Skousen
Thomas P. Raimondi, Jr
The ______ Agenda
I don't know why everybody is making such a big deal over this. If you want to see the infringing code get it from sco. They will make it available (provided you sign a NDA).
Taken directly from the SCO Linux IP License FAQ.
15. Is SCO willing to show any examples of source-code violations to Linux users?
SCO has been showing examples of direct line-by-line copying of UNIX code into Linux to hundreds of industry analysts, reporters, customers, partners, and industry influencers since June of this year. To view this code, interested parties have had to sign a non-disclosure agreement verifying that they would keep this code in confidence. SCO continues to identify and show this code to parties willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
There you go, talk with SCO, sign the NDA and start grep'ing the source tree, then lets really see if SCO has anything.
Yes, go read the stories on Groklaw. IBM does indeed have a right to see the evidence against it; that was the core of the recent ruling that went against SCO. SCO said they didn't want to show any code until IBM gave them about ten billion things (e.g. the source code for every version ever of AIX). IBM argued that SCO needed to show some evidence, since they are the plaintiffs and all. The judge ruled completely for IBM, and SCO has 30 days to cough up specific evidence (which must include specific lines of Linux, no more of this "here's a few hundred source files; you figure out which lines infringe" they already tried). Also, IBM doesn't have to provide any evidence during the 30 days; all discovery is on hold until SCO provides the evidence.
All of the above is bad for SCO, good for IBM. As FreeUser insightfully observed above, this is an attempt by SCO to spin a FUD web since they desperately wish for some good news.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Ah, another victim of SCO's dishonesty.
Look back over the case that SCO filed against IBM. SCO is not claiming that IBM ripped off code SCO wrote or already owned.
I want to say that again because it's the crux of SCO's lies: SCO is not claiming that IBM ripped off code that SCO wrote or already owned.
What SCO is claiming is that code that IBM wrote for SCO was also included in Linux, allegedly contrary to IBM's license.
Essentially, SCO is claiming IBM had a "no compete" clause somewhere in that license. I don't know if they did or not. Even if they did, I don't know if they contributed code to Linux in contravention of the clause.
But please let's not let SCO distort the question of fact: they have never claimed that pre-existing code owned by SCO was added to Linux. They have claimed that code was simultaneously added to Linux and (I think; somebody correct me here) AIX in violation of IBM's license with SCO.
All's true that is mistrusted
"The creator of Freenet, Ian Clarke, has cast doubt on whether Winny uses Freenet's full identity-cloaking features or its cryptography, according to a report in New Scientist."