Slashdot Mirror
Linus Blasts SCO's Header Claims
jonbryce writes "Linus has responded to the latest claims made by SCO in their letter to the Fortune 1000 companies. Basically, he wrote the code himself, and it has been there since Linux 0.0.1. No copying from BSD or any other source." You can also read his comment to the Linux kernel mailing list, which reads in part "I think we can totally _demolish_ the SCO claim that these
65 files were somehow 'copied.' They clearly are not."
Wow, it's a bloody SCO story trifecta day today! :)
Don't we need to inspect all the patches applied to these files and make sure that they were from sources that are as clean as the original code?
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" --Salvor Hardin
I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing I worked with more coders like Linus Torvalds. How many times have we programmers found some code that didn't work like it should, asked the original coder about it, and had our heads bitten off for daring to suggest that there was anything sub-optimum about their baby?
;) ... So there is definitely a lot of proof that my ctype.h is original work.
Mr. Torvalds, on the other hand, shows his value by his honesty:
- I wrote them [ctype.h] (and looking at the original ones, I'm a bit ashamed: the "toupper()" and "tolower()" macros are so horribly ugly that I wouldn't admit to writing them if it wasn't because somebody else claimed to have done so
It's like a doctor admitting a misdiagnosis to the patient... a wizard willing to work on Dorothy's side of the curtain. I hope that I'm as honest about my code as Linus -- and that my management continues to understand that you don't get good code by pretending you never make mistakes.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/lin ux-0.01.tar.gz
Next!
Linus' analysis spawned a masterful trolling Subject header on the Yahoo message board for scox: Linus caught - confessing to be ashamed. Nevermind that Linus' shameful confession wasn't copying code, but rather that his Linux 0.01 implementation of ctype wasn't threadsafe. Such beautiful spin. Darl would be proud. :)
It is obvious that SCO (trying to keep up it's inflated stock price) is issuing ridiculous claims about once a week. Given the amount of time that we have until they have to put up or shut up during a trial we can look forward to more of Darl's comedic stylings in the form of outlandish claims.
In case you're curious about where to get shares to short SCOX, Vanguard has them.
Linus probably spent the better part of the day responding to this SCO sillyness. What a waste of time. SCO should somehow be made to pay for there frivolous bullshit!
Isn't there some way to just shrug off SCO? I mean, it's like some annoying little man that constantly claims your head as his and is suing you for taking your head from him...
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
"I wrote them (and looking at the original ones, I'm a bit ashamed: the "toupper()" and "tolower()" macros are so horribly ugly that I wouldn't admit to writing them if it wasn't because somebody else claimed to have done so ;)"
:-)
If SCO is big on claiming ugly code, I can only imagine what a convoluted mess UnixWarez actually is.
I can't believe anyone on Slashdot doesn't know who Linus is.
He's Lucy's baby brother, dumbass! You know, the one with the blanket?
Where have you *been* the last 50 years?
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
and SCO is claiming copywrite over them, one can only assume that SCO is using Linus' code.
Could SCO, not the Linux community, be afoul of the copyright laws?
Code under the GPL is still covered by copyright law. In fact without the copyright, the owner of the code would not be able to license the code at all. If SCO is using Linus' code and not abiding by the license under which it was released then they are guilty of cival and possible criminal violations.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
We already knew the entire case was FUD - and now there's a little more evidence, but it's not going to change the perception which SCO has created: that there's something shakey about Open Source.
I don't see this blowing over until SCO is either acquired by IBM or countersued into oblivion...
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
After reading Linus' code review of a younger Linus's work, it seems Tannenbaum was right.
Tannenbaum: Linus, you fail it! 'F' for you!
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
SCO, n: a concise example of everything that's wrong with IP laws. example: Want to see how the DMCA is broken, go look at the actions of a SCO. Also, a company who's only product is lawsuits. example: That SCO only showed a profit because they forced another company to settle out of court.
SCO, v: to lie about a technical issue in an effort to increase stock prices while the upper management sell their stock. example: That company is SCOing, lookout.
Mind you, the mainstream press still doesn't know who to believe, since for them it's all greek. But anybody with even an inkling of an ability to read code can check these files out and follow Linus' discussion. And bits of information like this will make serious industry players fall squarely opposed to SCO (though the middle-manager types will still believe what they are spoon-fed by SCO, or rather be unable to analyze the argument sufficiently themselves to come to any conclusions). Bad SCO - very, very dumb.
I think we've clearly determined that SCO's claims (at least up till now) are completely baseless to the point of laughability. The problem here is that by Linus and various other open source figures discussing this, it almost gives credibility to their claims.
I think it's time that this nonsense stop...by all means, Linus should talk with the IBM and Novell legal team if he is so inclined, but this is only giving SCO publicity...SCO knows that if they can get their name in the news (even in a negative light), it's still better than fading away...
If news sites refuse to carry SCO's press releases, the whole thing would be moot...
What really need to happen is the courts need to put a gag order on everyone involved with the case...IBM knows where to go if they need more information, but keeping SCO from making any more claims regarding Linux would stop this whole thing in its tracks...I'm not even talking about the validity of their accusations, just that they shouldn't be allowed to keep attacking IBM and the Linux community until they win their case in court...
I can see the SCO press release now: "Linus Torvalds admits he is 'a bit ashamed' regarding our copyrighted code".
Would this not just be the ultimate sweet justice that SCO reveals their own illegal copying of code because they did not know the pedagree of the code.
....
oh please oh please
OK folks, now let's be realistic - SCO isn't looking for billions of dollars from "licenses", or even from IBM.
No one would come up with such a poor plan for promoting their product, intellectual property, lawsuit, or anything else.
So what is SCO doing? I think the answer is "Bad Marketing is better than No Marketing". In other words, SCO has nothing to lose.
In SCO's worst case, they end up with nothing. That's just about where they started. Just about every other case is better
Remember when Enron puked on America? What happened? Enron Corporate letterheads were being sold on eBay for a pretty penny! People wanted to BUY this crap because it was associated with the deplorable. And ya know what? SCO can do the same thing and make some serious money and fame.
I wouldn't be surprised if the guys at SCO were secretly selling those "SCO Sucks" t-shirts. It's a great market, and they sell like hotcakes.
I'm sorry this whole SCO thing is starting to come to its inevitable, and glorious end.
Yes, I wrote that right, I'm sorry.
Its been a heck of a lot of fun bashing SCO. Now that Linus himself is back-hand slapping the shit out of them in a most satisfyingly public style, I can only think- what about next month, next year? By then folks, we'll have no SCO. It'll only be Microsoft and IBM/SUN (on alternating Thursdays) to bash around.
SCO-y, we hardly knew ye
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
...and I pronounce SCO as "Bullshit."
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
IBM Attorney: "We would like to present as exhibit 128 the letter SCO recently sent to the Fortune 1000. Note how they threaten huge financial liability while claiming ownership of the most basic, internationally standardized, publically available C header files, some practically identical form of which has been present in every modern operating system and software development platform for over a decade, and several of which are freely published in first-year programming textbooks."
Mr. Boies: "I object!"
Judge: "And why is that, Mr. Boies?"
Mr. Boies: "Because it's devastating to my case, your honor!"
include $sig;
1;
Has anyone taken the time to send an official complaint to the SEC? It seems VERY strange that these "revelations" always seem to co-inside with poor stock performance annoucements. It would seem that SCO is intentionally trying to boost it's stock performance by making clearly false statements. I do believe that would be illegal - fraudulent speech isn't protected by the first amendment. IANAL so - is it?
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
If we are going to stand up in front of the world with a holier-than-thou attitude...The standards are somewhat lower for having a holier-than-SCO attitude.
CO can't exactly claim the codes were under some form of encryption...
<Darl McBride>Not encrypted? Then why are they called codes? Any manager can see that. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must buy up my stock.</Darl McBride>
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
I wonder if the other ones quit?
Well, the new job listing in your link, for the "Director of Financial Reporting" position (posted 12/08/03), does seem to be missing one important detail under "Job Responsibilities".
I don't see "Serving as scapegoat during inevitable corporate collapse." Do you think that's what they mean by "Additional special projects will be given on an 'as occurring' basis?"
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Does anyone else here think that it may not be the best idea to publicly (on Slashdot and Groklaw at least) counter claims made against something that seems bound for court? Doesn't this just give your opponent a head start on how to properly accuse you to get their desired results? I am not looking for security through obscurity, but given the veracity of the claimants, wouldn't some caution be in order?
Mark.
The / in
we should all take a deep breath, sit back, and have a sco juice
No. They claim copyright violation so they have to prove it. Imagine if what you said was true then SCO simply would have to file lots of (bogus) complaints every year and the kernel-hackers would be tied up for the rest of their lives trying to counter the claims. The burden of proof is on SCOs side.
Not really. Do the math: On 32-bit machines, there are more than 4 billion possibilities for both upper and lower limits. That means that the odds of picking the same limits that SCO's innovators did are less than 1 in 10^19. Clearly, $3 Billion in damages wouldn't begin to make up for this kind of blatant copying; it's less than 1 billionth of one dollar for each non-infringing alternative set of limits.
It's not exactly against the C standard (i.e. the program will still compile and behave predictably), but violates good programming practice.
That's one reasons why macros are frowned upon by modern programming languages.
Okay, maybe he's not lying, but he ought to check his own code. errno.h was taken from Minix, according to his comments
/*
* ok, as I hadn't got any other source of information about
* possible error numbers, I was forced to use the same numbers
* as minix.
* Hopefully these are posix or something. I wouldn't know (and posix
* isn't telling me - they want $$$ for their f***ing standard).
*
* We don't use the _SIGN cludge of minix, so kernel returns must
* see to the sign by themselves.
*
* NOTE! Remember to change strerror() if you change this file!
*/
Now, Minix was also a homegrown Unix and written completely apart from the AT&T source, so if Linus copied Minix, that's fine.
You can read all 3 or 4 sentences of the Minix license, but I think it's summed up pretty well with: For all practical purposes, MINIX can be treated as if it were in the public domain..
And I haven't even looked at the other files yet.
I feel like I'm watching some sort of play by play here. As Linus enumerates the various header files, I'm poppin' 'em into vim or emacs (or pico.. whatever mood strikes) and walking through them.
Shit... a few more weeks of these ridiculous SCO claims and maybe I'll know enough about the kernel to become a Linux hacker. Laugh if you will, but I didn't know anymore about C than the data types and basic syntax before this crap started. I've learned all sorts of neat stuff since then!
Thanks SCO! You've taught me in 9 months what I wouldn't let 4 years of college education beat into my thick skull!
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
'The SCO Group cannot expect to win any case based upon application interfaces which it's AT&T, USL and Novell predecessors relased in open standards specifically for the purpose of interoperability.
signal.h, errorno.h,and ioctl are all parts of many released standards including The Open Group and IEEE POSIX Base Specifications and the Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 151-2.
Note that The SCO Group does not own the copyrights on any of those standards and it does not own clear title to the copyrights on most of the AT&T Unix base.
From 1989, the then SCO activity pushed for the adoption of the iBCS Intel Binary Compatibility Specifications across *all* i386 Unix vendors
'Even SCO admits, no requries these definitions to be present in order to be standards compliant.
And what if the user of the original macro invokes it like this:
char * cp;
if (isdigit(cp++))
do_something();
What then, O wise one?
You mean, like, say, suing them?
The business world doesn't go by what people say on linux-kernel. Or what is said to various computer mags. No, it goes off of legal action. Linus and company need to recognize that they MUST DEFEND THEIR WORK LEGALLY. Given the sheer number of people whose work SCO has laid claim to, if they simply got off their asses and sued, SCO would be loosing the PR war and their lawyers would be tied up in litigation SCO doesn't want to be tied up in.
Everything else is just a whole lot of hot air, regardless of how true it is. You've GOT TO STAND UP FOR YOUR WORK.
Please help metamoderate.
It results in undefined behaviour. I admit it. I'm a tool.
#define isdigit(x) ((x) >= '0' && (x) <= '9')
I'm not going to dig through C standard, but this code is unsafe, so there is a perfectly good reason to disallow this (even though it will compile).
This macro is expanded in-line, so the code
isdigit('5')
is translated by C preprocessor to
(('5') >= '0' && ('5') = '9')
Now imagine what happens with isdigit(i++). If i == 9, i will be incremented twice and you will get the wrong answer.
Also consider what happens if x is a return value of a function, e.g. isdigit( foo(...) ). First, the function is called twice (which can be slow and certainly unneccessary). Second, the function may have side-effects (i.e. it may modify an external variable, write to a file, etc.), so doing it twice is equally bad.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Using the same numbers isn't copying the file.
You know, you'd think SCO would want to keep this quiet. You know, the fact they consider linux 0.0.1 "code" technically advanced, equal to their current products (presuming they still market any?) and ready for large scale deployment. And that was over 10 years ago!!
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
I thought you were just kidding with this, so I took out the CD-ROM that came with the "LINUX Core Kernel Commentary" book, since it has a 0.01 version for comparison with 2.2.x. The original is definitely not copied and the one from 2.2.10 looks like an incremental change (comments added, new error numbers, but the file itself doesn't look any diffferent).
2. The court case is against IBM and notably on some contractual issues. Again public opinion equates the two but this is wrong. IBM could lose and Linux could be unharmed in theory.
3. Groklaw and to a lesser degree Slashdot is part of an experiment. OpenSource lawsuit. The methodology of OpenSource is being used against SCO.
The debunking of anything SCO claims in hours after they make it public or file it in court is something that is new and will be lethal to SCO in the end.
Help fight continental drift.
sue, maybe not, but subpoenate, requesting to reveal the infriging code, why not?
I personally wonder, how many "close source" companies secretly and illegally include GNU-copyrighted code in their products, and sell it without source, violating GPL, but nobody knows they do, just because nobody ever sees the source.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
In more other news, SCO sues the Catholic Church for infringing SCO's copyrights and patents through unlawful reproduction and distribution of the Holy Bible. According to SCO CEO Darl McBride, the Bible contains over 1 million verses copied illegally from SCO intellectual property.
In yet more other news... oh I give up.
Linus commented that he himself remembers writing those files. Well, thanks to Kernel.org and a little too much time on my hands, I did a little exploring. Kernel 2.6.0 has errno.h in two files. To make my life a little easier, I combined the two files, errno.h and errno-base.h. In Kernel 2.3.50 it is one file.
/*Argument list too long*/ -- 2.6.0 /*Arg list too long*/ -- 2.3.50
Well, as we know, SCO is claiming that 2.4.21 is the kernel that started with the problems. If that is the case, assuming that SCO actually has a case then we have a problem.
But the thing is that the errno.h and errno-base.h in 2.6.0 and the errno.h in 2.3.50 have only one difference other than being split up and the appropriate location indicators. The only difference is:
#define E2BIG 7
#define E2BIG 7
I obtained this by using diff. So a simple utility disproves SCO's claim on that ground. Also, you will notice that the Kernel v. 0.01 has only 39 error numbers. They are also included, with the same error numbers in the current 2.3.50 and the 2.6.0 files. A cursory look revealed that 2.4.23 has the same errno.h err codes.
So when Linus says that he wrote them there is proof. Further, since 2.4.21 is the infected one, what is the difference between 2.3.50 and 2.4.23 and the comments. Surely SCO can not be so stupid as to say that comments are a cause for action -- the end user does not even see nor are they accessable to the end user unless they have the source.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
No. They claim copyright violation so they have to prove it. Imagine if what you said was true then SCO simply would have to file lots of (bogus) complaints every year and the kernel-hackers would be tied up for the rest of their lives trying to counter the claims. The burden of proof is on SCOs side.
Besides, since the header files contain only facts, there is no copyright value to them.
Through all this madness everyone thinks that SCO is against Linux. In reality this is the boost that Linux needed to get it's name out there to really start to get big. Maybe Darl gave up on his UNIX and decided to give Linux a hand up.....
Well, I can dream can't I?
They may have been under some pressure to book the Baystar and RBC investments as revenue, or some other similar "creative accounting" move, to make the 4th quarter look like a gain rather than a loss. And the finance guys said "No way do I want to share a cell with the Enron guys! I quit!".
Yes, it's telling. You have a college student who's writing his own OS because he can't afford the money to purchase a commercial *nix. He'd like to make it comply to the standards, but he can't afford the money to buy the standard either. This is exactly why standards should be open in every sense of the word.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
IANAL: Eventhough I don't think SCO has a case, I don't like articles like the one above. Didn't the courts recently uphold an IBM motion that forces SCO to reveal some of the code infrigements it claims? I would think a common legal tactic would be to give an impression of satisfying the court while sending out the least useful information at the worst possible time and in a voluminous quantity that actually says very little. 65 files containing lots of redundancy sent out three days before Christmas could be seen as a delaying tactic. I sure hope this is not what SCO will reiterate to the court in answer to the IBM discovery, because they will have bought themselves time for another round of antics. "But your honor, we gave them thousands of line of code in 65 five files, and yet they are still not satisfied?" For various reasons, I would think SCO would like to reveal the stronger evidence of their argument at the latest stage possible. For one, if someone comes forward to defend open source while chosing undisclosed evidence as an example then SCO could pose the question as to why the defender knew that was a sore point. That is why I still don't understand the seemingly benign actions like the public retraction of some code by SGI or the immediate "feel good" response given to SCO's last offensive. The former can be construed as an admission of some sort while the latter places Linus as the original owner of disputed files. So even if someone else patched in something at a later stage, SCO may have an argument to drag Linus further in: the owner of the file and project should monitor more carefully the progression of the work. In fact this may be similar to something argued in the past. The Linus response makes you feel good with its mockery, but I do not think it a smart response. Let SCO have the burden of establishing everything. As the accuser, let them do all the work. Even if some of the information is public domain, it'll take them longer than if someone spells it out and they may not have time to cover more ground to finesse their weak arguments. Linux does not need to win a PR war, it needs to establish its case in court. Very few people outside of Linux fans will read this article, therefore making such as response of little PR value to start with.
Looks like they won't fool everyone this time:
Creator of Linux Defends Its Originality
also:
Novell Registers Unix Copyrights
unfortunately jounalists don't read slashdot or Groklaw. It is very obvious for us that SCOs claims are baseless, but obviously not for mainstream press.
So when you see a journalist who is clueless, write a letter (to his editor if you can't figure out how to contact him)
- politely correcting him,
- linking to the most authoritative postings (i.e. Linus' letter) refuting SCO's claim that you can find, and
- pointing out sites (such as groklaw and slashdot) where a truth-squad is digging out and posting refutations as fast as SCO makes up another claim.
And don't sweat it if a lot of other people do it too. The more the merrier. (It creates an unspoken subtext: "If a LOT of people know this, Mr, Reporter, why don't you?")
Reporters don't like to be played for fools. It ruins their reputations and hurts their carreers. Some polite letters turning them on to new sources could get a couple of them posting our side of the story - if only for the appearance of balance. And once one or two do that, any of the rest that don't follow along look like idiots - so the herd stampeeds.
Imagine the whole establishment media looking at SCO's claims, through a microscope, skeptically.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Yes, Linus wrote most of it. But they included errno.h was because of
/* This does not make sense */
#define ENOSENSE 169
which was, of course, written by Chewbacca. They didn't want to give away their defense strategy, so they threw in the FUD in hopes people would not notice they are using the Chewbacca Strategy.
No.
The "bid price" is the highest amount that any buyer is willing to pay for a stock at a particular time. Likewise, the "ask price" is the lowest amount that any seller is willing to sell the stock for.
So, one particular buyer is asking to buy 100 shares at 4 cents, while one seller is offering to sell 100 shares at $892 each.
Since you're looking at the closing quote, the bid and ask prices are not particularly meaningful. One way to read those numbers is that "all reasonable orders were filled by the end of the day, and the remaining unfilled orders were ridculous (4 cents and $892)."
Note: This is a repost of a comment that I sent to groklaw.
I do have a copy of the Unix source, circa 1988, and I can't see how anyone who knew any C could possibly think that the ctype implementation is copied.
The array has a similar name (_ctype in Linux, a variation on that in Unix). Some of the C macros used to perform each test (see the definition of _U, _L etc in include/linux/ctype.h) have the same names as they do in Unix. Some do not. For example, isdigit() uses _D (for digit) in Linux and but Unix uses a different capital letter. Similarly, _SP in the Linux version has a single-capital-letter name in Unix.
Notably, the order that the macros are defined (and hence their specific bit values) are different.
The implementations are also interestingly different. The specific isxxx() macros, for example, are written in a different way in Linux and in Unix. Unix doesn't use an __ismask()-like macro, preferring to access the array directly.
As Linus pointed out, there are only so many ways to write an ISO-compliant ctype implementation in C. I can see how anyone who didn't know this might think that the Linux code could be copied, but nobody who knew any C could possibly make this mistake.
The most telling difference for me is that the Unix ctype handles EOF, like the ANSI/ISO standard says it should, but the Linux version does not. Why someone would copy the Unix code AND go to the trouble of introducing an incompatibility with the ANSI/ISO standard is one for the lawyers to sort out.
actually, that would explain a lot.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
SCO keeps talking about the "ABI". It appears that they are not claiming copyright on the headers themselves, but on the general kind of interface those headers specify. Whether Linus looked at BSD or SysV headers is then immaterial.
It's not clear that something that general is copyrightable--they seem to be fishing. But keep in mind that movie plots have been defended using copyright law, so it's possible.
Proficient in Java technologies or Microsoft.Net
7+ years in Web technologies
Lemme see. Java servlets were introduced in 1998. That was a mere 5 years ago.
Back in '97 a programmer friend of mine looking for work showed me a job ad asking for people with at least 5 years experience with Windows 95.
Its a conspiracy I tell you, they're trying to catch careless time travellers...
You can't take the sky from me...
Well, as the other posts say the final bid/ask amounts don't tell you much. But something else does. You can no longer short sell SCO. Noone is willing to lend that stock for short sale cause it is expected to fall much faster than the amount of money one could recoup from the interest on lending a stock. The only time this kind of situation happened in recent history was when 3com stock was worth less than the palm stock (at the time palm was a 3com subsidiary).
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The real problem is that SCO had to pick a part of the Linux system that actually was similar to their UNIXes. After all, any number of people have access to the code that SCO is saying IBM put into Linux. If they picked something that was obviously bogus then IBM (or Novell) could simply call their bluff. Since no such beast exists SCO simply had to pick a part of the Linux kernel that had to be similar to their UNIX (because there was no other way to write it).
SCO's lie does not have to be terribly convincing. After all, what they really are doing is trying to drive their stock price up, and almost no investors have a clue about UNIX history or copyright law. So SCO simply has to float a big lie and then rely on Microsoft and Sun (and the many analysts and journalists that have a vested interest in derailing Free Software) to act as if the lie was somewhat credible. SCO has said all sorts of crazy things in the press, and people that should know better are acting as if SCO actually has a point.
Since SCO isn't actually trying to win the case (instead they are simply trying to drag it out so that they can dump their shares without getting targetted by the SEC), they can say whatever they want in the press. IBM, Novell, and Red Hat, on the other hand are actually trying to win their respective cases and they know that things that they say in public can be used against them in court. These companies know that the proper place to do your talking is in court. Linus apparently doesn't care that his comments could run him into legal trouble down the road (well, he already had been subpoenaed).
So Darl McBride claims to have a Linux expert that can rebut the assertion that Linus has hard evidence that the disputed files were written by him in the form of those actual files, archived in a Linux tarball that is mirrored the world over.
Well, all I can say is, if SCO can do that, then they deserve to win this case; we can all celebrate their victory by building snowforts in Hell.
Jay (=
check it out
2 174158852#c41366)
Subj: AT&T donated rights
By: radicimo Date: 12/22/03 10:21 pm
from Groklaw thread on Linus' code
(h++p://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2003122
--
Standards
Authored by: meissner on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:10 PM EST
I was a member of the ANSI X3J11 C standards committee from its founding in 1983 until after the first ANSI and later ISO standards were released in 1989 and 1990 respecitively. As part of the process, AT&T through its official representive (Lawrence Rosler) specificially gave the rights to the C language and its library (including the ctype.h, signal.h, and errno.h header files) to the committe. I believe they did the same thing officially to the POSIX committee at the same time (which would cover ioctl.h and more of the errnos in errno.h, and more of the signals in signal.h). Unfortunately, I no longer retain paper documents from that period, but if it becomes important to establish a clear paper trail, I suspect Jim Brody (chair), Tom Plum (Vice char), and P. J. Plauger (secretary) probably do retain their copies.
Of course, as has been shown in the past, SCO really has no institutional memory of the past.
I can't imagine why the last guy quit! Any takers??!!?
It's not a question of whether his statements are legal or not. You can say whatever dumb thing you want, whenever you want. The problem is that Linus' words can now be considered "evidence," and they can be used against him in a court of law.
For example, he is now on the record stating that he wrote the original version of these files, but that these files are now different than the originals that he wrote. That may seem innocuous, but who knows what SCO might want to prove in a court of law. Any way you look at it he is making SCO's life easier by pointing out possible flaws in their case.
No, the trick when you have legal difficulties is to say as little as possible, and to never say anything without legal counsel going over the angles.
Interestingly enough, the URL google uses is the same! Hmmm. So if you have a browser that allows you to customize the Referer header, you'll probably be able to access the article by just setting it to google, without actually going to Google News before...
Yes, indeed, it works!:
> telnet www.nytimes.com 80 /2003/12/23/technology/23linux.html HTTP/1.0
...
...
Trying 199.239.136.200...
Connected to www.nytimes.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET
Host: www.nytimes.com
Referer: http://news.google.com
Linus Torvalds, creator of the popular Linux computer operating system, defended his work yesterday as not always lovely but original - and certainly not copied, as a Utah company has contended.
The Coherent episode suggests one approach to disproving the SCO case: if undocumented SCO/UNIX bugs (or features) are missing from Linux, that strongly suggests that the Linux code was not copied from UNIX. Documenting subtle differences in behavior between the two kernels could put the final nail into SCO's coffin.
If SCO thinks that it somehow has a copyright on the intellectual content of the code (e.g., that only it can publish a macro called "isdigit()"), well, AT&T long ago chose not to assert that claim.
[this
How can they include things like the correct errno.h for Linux into their closed source binaries without being in copyright violation? Remember that several of the Linux i386 values aren't POSIX compliant so SCO can't say they used the standards.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain