Ptraci writes "Over at Groklaw they have been doing some digging and have found evidence that old SCO and Caldera did in fact contribute those files that they now want to charge us for."
Where will Groklaw head...
by
4lex
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
when this SCO thing gets to an end?
I appreciate they are doing a very worthy work (and getting the slashdot crowd to a more informed talk about SCO, something necessary because the old jokes are starting to become _really_ old).
I sure would like them to go on when this SCO fiasto bluffs down. The free software world really needs an army of lawyers and paralawyers, if we want to stay long. I only can say "Kudos to you, groklawyers! Go on!"
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Why is the parent moded as flamebait? Isnt that the truth that Groklaw are probably biased against SCO? Groklaw has probably uncovered quite a lot of dirt on SCO that is correct, and I doubt that they lie about anything. But if one has taken sides on an issue, can we trust that the person wont turn a blind eye on some facts? Will he present facts that might not go down to well with his own version and side? I think it is only a fair comment. SCO are probably a bunch of liars, but underestimating and brushing aside an opponent as "nothing" WILL in most cases come back and bite you in the *ss.
Re:Their contribution...
by
jrumney
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The brilliant thing is that Caldera PGP signed the files that they released. So it is going to be extremely hard for SCO to argue that someone else released them, or that they were released by a rogue employee without permission.
I heard that the RIAA stole a lot of proprietary code from SCO, and that people at SCO have been illegally downloading a bunch of Metallica MP3s.
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Actually, it would suffice to say that Groklaw is more interested in finding information that would benefit SCO.
In fact, the entire Linux community is more concerned with finding facts that could help SCO.
Well, alteast they WERE. The simple fact is, SCO has lied and been caught soooo many times over the last few months... all we can do now is wait for them to lie again so we can disprove it.
It's simple, SCO has lied and it's a known fact. They've lied a LOT, made a LOT of false allegations, etc al..
If you bite into a terd, it's going to taste like shit. No amount of suger and spice is going to make it otherwise.
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
azaris
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Can we trust them to be fair and unbiased in their "research"?
*boggle*
Someone on Slashdot is worried about whether Groklaw is being fair against SCO.
What next, FoxNews worried about the humane treatment of Saddam Hussein?
How to make money off of a failing company
by
cunninghammer
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Step 1: Contribute to Opensource.
Step 2: Forget you did it.
Step 3: Sue everyone else in hopes that one of the companies will decide it's cheaper to buy you then to fight.
Step 4: Watch the stock price go through the roof.
Step 5: Profit!
"If you'll look out the left side of the bus you'll see the smoking Caldera that used to be SCO Group...remember this sight well if ever you contemplate screwing with Open Source..."
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
This guy brings up a great point. I'm an IT manager at a Fortune 500, and we are considering the ramifications of this case everyday at work.
Techies - if you want to convince your manager that SCO has no case, stop being so emotional about it. We in management have a hard time trusting your opinion when you seem to have so much invested in this emotionally.
This is not some battle of good v. evil - you aren't Bilbo fighting that evil eye at the top of the tower (forgot his name, evil wizard guy).
Re:Mirror please.
by
inode_buddha
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I've put copies in html here, postscript here, and PDF is here.
-- C|N>K
Regarding Groklaw's Slashdotting
by
santiag0
·
· Score: 5, Informative
There is a paypal link for those that wish to contribute a little something on the home page (once you can get it to load).
Maybe a few $ here and there from slashdot readers, and they can get a more robust setup, and survive the next slashdot link.
No pressure. Just a thought. I've given a little twice. Groklaw is a tremendous resource for those following the SCO/IBM/Redhat/Novell saga. PJ rocks!
Re:FBI investigates SCO as author of MyDoom virus!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Funny
It's gotta be a lie. We know SCO doesn't employ programmers anymore, just lawyers and executives.
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
kfg
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Legal advocates are never fair and unbiased. They are not supposed to be. That is the function of a judge.
However, if legal research finds a picture of Darl wearing a pair of shoes he says he never owned, well, than that's what they did. Bias doesn't even come into it.
Then it would be up to Darl to try to explain away the picture by saying it was Christmas and his cat DDOSed his regular shoes so he demanded that IBM loan him those, or some such nonesense.
And if it goes to trial Darl will have to try to put the glove on IBM.
KFG
Re:Their contribution...
by
Naikrovek
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
that's what experts are for. the "average" judge doesn't know ballistics either but ballistics is still a science that judges use daily to convict murderers. because a judge doesn't know about a certain type of proof doesn't make it invalid.
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
AlterTick
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Groklaw is biased against SCO already. Can we trust them to be fair and unbiased in their "research"?
Bias doesn't automatically indicate dishonesty. Are they biased against SCO? Sure. Does this mean they're looking primarily at SCO rather than the OSS community for evidence of malfeasance? Sure does. Does this mean that evidence they find is worthless? Nope (it's PGP signed by Caldera fer gosh sakes). Just because Groklaw isn't also out looking for "the real killers" deosn't mean they're lying about SCO. You have to judge the honesty of an organization separately. Just because some people lie to support their biases doesn't mean all biased people are liars.
-- Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
Re:FBI investigates SCO as author of MyDoom virus!
by
Anthony+Boyd
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I don't buy it. The site says they got their information from IBM. That runs totally counter to IMB's don't-talk-to-the-press rule. It looks to me like an attempt to spread bad information, pin the blame on IBM, and tarnish them.
I'd love to be wrong, though. The idea of SCO writing a virus against itself for PR purposes is almost too funny. I'd imagine a company or two might sue SCO to cover wages spent doing MyDoom cleanup. Ha ha. That would make my heart feel soooo good.
Full Article Text
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
This article is the result of a group research project, compiled and
primarily written by Frank Sorenson with Pamela Jones. The special
footnoted article explaining some of the terms for nonprogrammers was
written by Nick Richards. The research group was primarily composed of
Frank Sorenson, Dr. Stupid, Harlan Wilkerson, Rand McNatt, Roland
Buresund, and Pamela Jones, all of whom contributed both research and
writing, with input from some Linux kernel contributors. Everyone
worked on editing, including an invited group of Groklaw regulars.
However, Frank carried the load more than anyone else, so his name is
on the finished article.
We are now publishing the article and welcome Groklaw readers'
further
contributions, corrections, improvements, and comments. This is an
ongoing project. This article is the first in a series where we'll
discuss the System V UNIX ABI, or Application Binary Interface. We
approached the research as, What if Linus Torvalds had not already claimed
paternity of most of the header files? Then what?
The article will first explain what the ABI is and what it
does, then
discuss whether the code was released under the GPL and if so whether
management at SCO knew and approved, and finally show how the Linux
files that pertain to this do not appear to be infringing files that
SCO can claim.
For those who are not programmers, such as
myself, there is a footnoted section to explain in greater detail and
in plain English what ABIs and APIs and shared libraries are and how
they work. If you read it first, it will clarify the terminology for
you and you will be able to follow the thread in the article more
easily. At least, it helped me tremendously.
I think you will see from this article alone that if SCO is
planning to sue anyone over the ABI files, unless there are facts we
haven't unearthed, they seem to be leaning on a rickety bamboo reed.
GROKLAW TAKES A CLOSER LOOK AT THE ABI FILES
~by Frank Sorenson et al
Back in January 2003, word leaked out
that SCO was planning to charge Linux users for "System V Intellectual
Property" in Linux. SCO created a new business division called SCOSource to come up with new
ways to make money from this "intellectual property". The original SCOSource
Presentation (PowerPoint
version) talks of licensing SCO's shared UNIX Libraries from
OpenServer and UnixWare for use in Linux.
A Little Background: What Are ABI Files? [1]
As background information, shared libraries are files
containing
information to be loaded when an application is run. They usually
implement common routines, and their inclusion simplifies programming,
reduces file size, and standardizes interfaces. A simple example of
this would be the "copy file" and "move file" commands: both commands
check file permissions and manipulate the file system. When
applications have a great deal of functionality in common, this
functionality is often placed into shared libraries.
Shared libraries are architecture, operating-system, and
version specific. Executables for different systems follow various
standard formats, such as a.out, ELF, and COFF. To load an application,
the system must do several things: the system interprets the format of
the executable (or binary), loads any shared libraries referenced, and
begins executing the code found in the binary.
If the executable is in a different format from those the
system supports, or if the library files are for the wrong architecture
or operating system version, the binary normally will not run. In 1991,
Intel announced
the availability of the iBCS-2 (Intel Binary Compatibility
This is important to stop SCO's current attack
by
Thagg
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
SCO has recently sent a series of increasingly threatening letters to various Unix and Linux customers. In these letters, SCO approaches, and perhaps puts its toe over the line, between legal browbeating and illegal extortion.
These letters threaten the companies over exactly this ABI issue. In the days before the internet and sites like Groklaw, people had to decide on their own, or with their lawyers, what to do about these letters. Each of the victims might attempt to do the kind of research done by Frank Sorenson and Pamely Jones here, but as the victims are probably not intellectual property experts and have their own businesses to run, they might be tempted to pay off the extortionists.
But, now they each one of the victims has the benefit of this research, and can make a much more informed decision. The Groklaw article also provides links to the original source for each of their assertions, so that the recipients of the letters can look at the actual underlying data.
All that said, the article is reminds me of the opening to Get Smart, where Maxwell Smart goes through an almost interminable series of doors to get to his destination. Sorenson and Jones, and their helpers, have found any number of different ways that the code in question is available for use. SCO is screwed on the basis of any one of those.
Thad Beier
-- I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
Some+Dumbass...
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Can we trust them to be fair and unbiased in their "research"?
Does it matter?
In any legal situation (a trial, contract dispute, or whatever) both sides try to find evidence which supports their case. Neither side is "fair" or "unbiased". Yet legal disputes get resolved all the time. What's the magical secret? The judge and jury get to see all of the evidence, then they make up their minds based on all of the evidence which they have seen.
Groklaw may well be biased against SCO, but all they're doing is presenting more evidence. That's exactly what both sides are supposed to do (and what SCO has been criticized for not doing).
See, you seem to want us to ignore "biased" sources of evidence. "Groklaw is biased, so they can't be trusted" is a decent summary of what you wrote. You've got to think about this on a higher level. Very few unbiased groups will ever get involved in a legal dispute. That's the nature of legal disputes, or even disputes in general -- if you don't care, you don't get involved! So the trick is to focus on evidence and solid, logical arguments rather than rhetoric. Focus on what each side can prove rather than merely what they say. That's the way to deal with situations in which interested parties are involves (which includes almost all legal disputes, and many other situations as well). Simply ignoring any biased opinion (is there any other kind of opinion?) will leave you ignorant.
Re:But didn't Linus say he wrote those?
by
spitzak
·
· Score: 5, Informative
No this is not errno.h and so on.
The ABI files being discussed here are some files that it was considered quite likely SCO owns, and were never included in Linux although they were added by some third parties to installations to port their software from SCO to Linux. They duplicate the SCO ABI which is different than the Linux ABI. It is a lot like Wine being used to run Windows programs, though a lot easier.
In fact these files probably contain code to patch over the differences between the Linux errno.h and the Unix one, so it certainly is not the Linus header files.
The header file stuff is a joke anyways, as Daryl clearly said many times that only Linux after 2.4 is infringing. The header files did not change between 2.2 and 2.4.
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already
by
strider
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Argh!
It's not a problem that Groklaw might or might not be biased in their research. EVERYONE IS BIASED! Why is it that so many people, whether critizing slashdot's "anti-microsoft bias" or now Groklaw's "anti-sco bias" seem to be scouring the world searching for someone to write an article or produce a site on a topic totally neutral on every possible opinion on the subject. Groklaw thinks SCO is full of shit. Therefore they are biased. Groklaw's arguments and evidence seem to substantiate their claims. Therefore they are also probably CORRECT.
Dealing with bias is why you have a brain. Read the articles, judge their evidence, and come to your own conclusion. If you disagree provide a detailed analysis, and prove your point. Enough with the goddamned bias mania.
-- The preceding passage has been checked for spelling,
you will find no sentence without at least one mis spelled word
"Even if after everything we've heard from them to date falls through, they may try to make the claim in court that every OS in existence is derived from SCO IP, and that being the case Linux users STILL owe SCO money, regardless of code."
Not gonna happen.
"Folks, the individual details of this don't matter at all. That's not what this is about."
No actually the details do matter. They matter in the court of law. Contrary to popular belief you can't just buy your way into winning every lawsuit.
"We are in the way of SCO's using our code for commercial purposes. Therefore we are the enemy to be destroyed, "
Yea, so what? MS wants linux destroyed as well and you how well that's worked for them.
Look, your just acting a bit hysterical here. Facts and law do matter. And contrary to your sky is falling ideas Linux isn't going to be destroyed by anyone. If it turns out that Caldera released the code under the GPL 5 years ago or whatever then this is hugely damaging to the case. This IS helpful. You can't just dismiss that and say "well SCO will just think of some angle to spin this." My advice to you is relax a bit and ease off the coffee. This case will resolve itself and there is no indication from any repudiable legal counsel or expert that SCO will be the end of Linux.
-- If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Validation of the open source model
by
El
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It appears that in addition to all bugs being shallow with enough eyes, that all complicated legal problems are also shallow with enough eyes. How many people have helped Pamela Jones in this by locating references? It appears that open source methodology may be an advantage in legal cases as well as software development!
--
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
When the facts are on one side, the other side can't do much except resort to innuendo and FUD. Thus the rise in 'Groklaw is biased' whispers I've seen over the past few months. Well, against SCO, who could NOT be biased at this point unless you are ignorant of the facts of the case? The more you learn about SCO's claims, the more you realize they have nothing. That is why the mainstream press has been slowly but steadily turning against SCO too. They have realized what Groklaw saw early on.
If a guy wants to mug you, guess what? You are biased against his claims against your money.
Public thanks for Groklaw
by
3Suns
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I'm not sure if it's been done, or if plans are in the works, but Groklaw has been a tremendous boon to the Open Source community. Everybody involved with making that site, especially Pamela Jones, has done an enormous amount of expensive work, pro bono, on our (the Open Source community's) behalf. The evidence is out there, and thanks to Groklaw it is being found and the world is being informed.
I'd like to point everybody to the little paypal button on the groklaw sidebar. They deserve credit for their work. Are there any plans for some kind of big party at a linux conference for Pam Jones et al.? Maybe after the case is settled.
Slashdot Mirror
Sky reported to be blue after extensive research.
I'm amazing. You aren't. SUCK IT
when this SCO thing gets to an end?
I appreciate they are doing a very worthy work (and getting the slashdot crowd to a more informed talk about SCO, something necessary because the old jokes are starting to become _really_ old).
I sure would like them to go on when this SCO fiasto bluffs down. The free software world really needs an army of lawyers and paralawyers, if we want to stay long. I only can say "Kudos to you, groklawyers! Go on!"
My journal. Mainly about freedom.
Why is the parent moded as flamebait?
Isnt that the truth that Groklaw are probably biased against SCO?
Groklaw has probably uncovered quite a lot of dirt on SCO that is correct, and I doubt that they lie about anything.
But if one has taken sides on an issue, can we trust that the person wont turn a blind eye on some facts? Will he present facts that might not go down to well with his own version and side?
I think it is only a fair comment.
SCO are probably a bunch of liars, but underestimating and brushing aside an opponent as "nothing" WILL in most cases come back and bite you in the *ss.
The brilliant thing is that Caldera PGP signed the files that they released. So it is going to be extremely hard for SCO to argue that someone else released them, or that they were released by a rogue employee without permission.
I heard that the RIAA stole a lot of proprietary code from SCO, and that people at SCO have been illegally downloading a bunch of Metallica MP3s.
Actually, it would suffice to say that Groklaw is more interested in finding information that would benefit SCO.
In fact, the entire Linux community is more concerned with finding facts that could help SCO.
Well, alteast they WERE. The simple fact is, SCO has lied and been caught soooo many times over the last few months... all we can do now is wait for them to lie again so we can disprove it.
It's simple, SCO has lied and it's a known fact. They've lied a LOT, made a LOT of false allegations, etc al..
If you bite into a terd, it's going to taste like shit. No amount of suger and spice is going to make it otherwise.
Can we trust them to be fair and unbiased in their "research"?
*boggle*
Someone on Slashdot is worried about whether Groklaw is being fair against SCO.
What next, FoxNews worried about the humane treatment of Saddam Hussein?
Step 2: Forget you did it.
Step 3: Sue everyone else in hopes that one of the companies will decide it's cheaper to buy you then to fight.
Step 4: Watch the stock price go through the roof.
Step 5: Profit!
Looks like at least a few figured it out.
"If you'll look out the left side of the bus you'll see the smoking Caldera that used to be SCO Group...remember this sight well if ever you contemplate screwing with Open Source..."
This guy brings up a great point. I'm an IT manager at a Fortune 500, and we are considering the ramifications of this case everyday at work.
Techies - if you want to convince your manager that SCO has no case, stop being so emotional about it. We in management have a hard time trusting your opinion when you seem to have so much invested in this emotionally.
This is not some battle of good v. evil - you aren't Bilbo fighting that evil eye at the top of the tower (forgot his name, evil wizard guy).
I've put copies in html here, postscript here, and PDF is here.
C|N>K
There is a paypal link for those that wish to contribute a little something on the home page (once you can get it to load).
Maybe a few $ here and there from slashdot readers, and they can get a more robust setup, and survive the next slashdot link.
No pressure. Just a thought. I've given a little twice. Groklaw is a tremendous resource for those following the SCO/IBM/Redhat/Novell saga. PJ rocks!
It's gotta be a lie. We know SCO doesn't employ programmers anymore, just lawyers and executives.
Legal advocates are never fair and unbiased. They are not supposed to be. That is the function of a judge.
However, if legal research finds a picture of Darl wearing a pair of shoes he says he never owned, well, than that's what they did. Bias doesn't even come into it.
Then it would be up to Darl to try to explain away the picture by saying it was Christmas and his cat DDOSed his regular shoes so he demanded that IBM loan him those, or some such nonesense.
And if it goes to trial Darl will have to try to put the glove on IBM.
KFG
that's what experts are for. the "average" judge doesn't know ballistics either but ballistics is still a science that judges use daily to convict murderers. because a judge doesn't know about a certain type of proof doesn't make it invalid.
Bias doesn't automatically indicate dishonesty. Are they biased against SCO? Sure. Does this mean they're looking primarily at SCO rather than the OSS community for evidence of malfeasance? Sure does. Does this mean that evidence they find is worthless? Nope (it's PGP signed by Caldera fer gosh sakes). Just because Groklaw isn't also out looking for "the real killers" deosn't mean they're lying about SCO. You have to judge the honesty of an organization separately. Just because some people lie to support their biases doesn't mean all biased people are liars.
Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
I don't buy it. The site says they got their information from IBM. That runs totally counter to IMB's don't-talk-to-the-press rule. It looks to me like an attempt to spread bad information, pin the blame on IBM, and tarnish them.
I'd love to be wrong, though. The idea of SCO writing a virus against itself for PR purposes is almost too funny. I'd imagine a company or two might sue SCO to cover wages spent doing MyDoom cleanup. Ha ha. That would make my heart feel soooo good.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
We are now publishing the article and welcome Groklaw readers' further contributions, corrections, improvements, and comments. This is an ongoing project. This article is the first in a series where we'll discuss the System V UNIX ABI, or Application Binary Interface. We approached the research as, What if Linus Torvalds had not already claimed paternity of most of the header files? Then what?
The article will first explain what the ABI is and what it does, then discuss whether the code was released under the GPL and if so whether management at SCO knew and approved, and finally show how the Linux files that pertain to this do not appear to be infringing files that SCO can claim.
For those who are not programmers, such as myself, there is a footnoted section to explain in greater detail and in plain English what ABIs and APIs and shared libraries are and how they work. If you read it first, it will clarify the terminology for you and you will be able to follow the thread in the article more easily. At least, it helped me tremendously.
I think you will see from this article alone that if SCO is planning to sue anyone over the ABI files, unless there are facts we haven't unearthed, they seem to be leaning on a rickety bamboo reed.
GROKLAW TAKES A CLOSER LOOK AT THE ABI FILES
~by Frank Sorenson et al
Back in January 2003, word leaked out that SCO was planning to charge Linux users for "System V Intellectual Property" in Linux. SCO created a new business division called SCOSource to come up with new ways to make money from this "intellectual property". The original SCOSource Presentation (PowerPoint version) talks of licensing SCO's shared UNIX Libraries from OpenServer and UnixWare for use in Linux.
A Little Background: What Are ABI Files? [1]
As background information, shared libraries are files containing information to be loaded when an application is run. They usually implement common routines, and their inclusion simplifies programming, reduces file size, and standardizes interfaces. A simple example of this would be the "copy file" and "move file" commands: both commands check file permissions and manipulate the file system. When applications have a great deal of functionality in common, this functionality is often placed into shared libraries.
Shared libraries are architecture, operating-system, and version specific. Executables for different systems follow various standard formats, such as a.out, ELF, and COFF. To load an application, the system must do several things: the system interprets the format of the executable (or binary), loads any shared libraries referenced, and begins executing the code found in the binary.
If the executable is in a different format from those the system supports, or if the library files are for the wrong architecture or operating system version, the binary normally will not run. In 1991, Intel announced the availability of the iBCS-2 (Intel Binary Compatibility
SCO has recently sent a series of increasingly threatening letters to various Unix and Linux customers. In these letters, SCO approaches, and perhaps puts its toe over the line, between legal browbeating and illegal extortion.
These letters threaten the companies over exactly this ABI issue. In the days before the internet and sites like Groklaw, people had to decide on their own, or with their lawyers, what to do about these letters. Each of the victims might attempt to do the kind of research done by Frank Sorenson and Pamely Jones here, but as the victims are probably not intellectual property experts and have their own businesses to run, they might be tempted to pay off the extortionists.
But, now they each one of the victims has the benefit of this research, and can make a much more informed decision. The Groklaw article also provides links to the original source for each of their assertions, so that the recipients of the letters can look at the actual underlying data.
All that said, the article is reminds me of the opening to Get Smart, where Maxwell Smart goes through an almost interminable series of doors to get to his destination. Sorenson and Jones, and their helpers, have found any number of different ways that the code in question is available for use. SCO is screwed on the basis of any one of those.
Thad Beier
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Can we trust them to be fair and unbiased in their "research"?
Does it matter?
In any legal situation (a trial, contract dispute, or whatever) both sides try to find evidence which supports their case. Neither side is "fair" or "unbiased". Yet legal disputes get resolved all the time. What's the magical secret? The judge and jury get to see all of the evidence, then they make up their minds based on all of the evidence which they have seen.
Groklaw may well be biased against SCO, but all they're doing is presenting more evidence. That's exactly what both sides are supposed to do (and what SCO has been criticized for not doing).
See, you seem to want us to ignore "biased" sources of evidence. "Groklaw is biased, so they can't be trusted" is a decent summary of what you wrote. You've got to think about this on a higher level. Very few unbiased groups will ever get involved in a legal dispute. That's the nature of legal disputes, or even disputes in general -- if you don't care, you don't get involved! So the trick is to focus on evidence and solid, logical arguments rather than rhetoric. Focus on what each side can prove rather than merely what they say. That's the way to deal with situations in which interested parties are involves (which includes almost all legal disputes, and many other situations as well). Simply ignoring any biased opinion (is there any other kind of opinion?) will leave you ignorant.
No this is not errno.h and so on.
The ABI files being discussed here are some files that it was considered quite likely SCO owns, and were never included in Linux although they were added by some third parties to installations to port their software from SCO to Linux. They duplicate the SCO ABI which is different than the Linux ABI. It is a lot like Wine being used to run Windows programs, though a lot easier.
In fact these files probably contain code to patch over the differences between the Linux errno.h and the Unix one, so it certainly is not the Linus header files.
The header file stuff is a joke anyways, as Daryl clearly said many times that only Linux after 2.4 is infringing. The header files did not change between 2.2 and 2.4.
Argh!
It's not a problem that Groklaw might or might not be biased in their research. EVERYONE IS BIASED! Why is it that so many people, whether critizing slashdot's "anti-microsoft bias" or now Groklaw's "anti-sco bias" seem to be scouring the world searching for someone to write an article or produce a site on a topic totally neutral on every possible opinion on the subject. Groklaw thinks SCO is full of shit. Therefore they are biased. Groklaw's arguments and evidence seem to substantiate their claims. Therefore they are also probably CORRECT.
Dealing with bias is why you have a brain. Read the articles, judge their evidence, and come to your own conclusion. If you disagree provide a detailed analysis, and prove your point. Enough with the goddamned bias mania.
The preceding passage has been checked for spelling, you will find no sentence without at least one mis spelled word
Come on now.
"Even if after everything we've heard from them to date falls through, they may try to make the claim in court that every OS in existence is derived from SCO IP, and that being the case Linux users STILL owe SCO money, regardless of code."
Not gonna happen.
"Folks, the individual details of this don't matter at all. That's not what this is about."
No actually the details do matter. They matter in the court of law. Contrary to popular belief you can't just buy your way into winning every lawsuit.
"We are in the way of SCO's using our code for commercial purposes. Therefore we are the enemy to be destroyed, "
Yea, so what? MS wants linux destroyed as well and you how well that's worked for them.
Look, your just acting a bit hysterical here. Facts and law do matter. And contrary to your sky is falling ideas Linux isn't going to be destroyed by anyone. If it turns out that Caldera released the code under the GPL 5 years ago or whatever then this is hugely damaging to the case. This IS helpful. You can't just dismiss that and say "well SCO will just think of some angle to spin this." My advice to you is relax a bit and ease off the coffee. This case will resolve itself and there is no indication from any repudiable legal counsel or expert that SCO will be the end of Linux.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
It appears that in addition to all bugs being shallow with enough eyes, that all complicated legal problems are also shallow with enough eyes. How many people have helped Pamela Jones in this by locating references? It appears that open source methodology may be an advantage in legal cases as well as software development!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
If a guy wants to mug you, guess what? You are biased against his claims against your money.
I'm not sure if it's been done, or if plans are in the works, but Groklaw has been a tremendous boon to the Open Source community. Everybody involved with making that site, especially Pamela Jones, has done an enormous amount of expensive work, pro bono, on our (the Open Source community's) behalf. The evidence is out there, and thanks to Groklaw it is being found and the world is being informed.
I'd like to point everybody to the little paypal button on the groklaw sidebar. They deserve credit for their work. Are there any plans for some kind of big party at a linux conference for Pam Jones et al.? Maybe after the case is settled.
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted