Slashdot Mirror
Randall Davis: IBM Has No SCO Code
Mick Ohrberg writes "As reported by Groklaw, Randall Davis, renowned professor of Computer Science at MIT has after an extensive search found no evidence of SCO's claims that IBM has incorporated parts of the Unix System V code. Davis says "Accordingly, the IBM Code cannot be said, in my opinion, to be a modification or a derivative work based on the Unix System V Code." Surprised, anyone?"
you mean that SCO has been lying to us?
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
One thing was pointed out on Groklaw that I think was relevant. Although I think SCO has no case, I'm sure they will jump on the fact that the expert didn't provide an example of a true derivative work run through the same procedure.
It surely wouldn't have been hard to take some, say, early and "in the clear" code that has been reused and modified over time to show both that it can be identified and to show how code that has evolved can still leave the fingerprint of the original code. Without that counter example the failure to find matches would seem underwhelming. (The closest the testimony came to this was showing a positive result that was generated and showing how it was a commonly repeated pattern in all software written in C, not something specific to these two programs).
Perhaps elsewhere in IBMs testimony there was reference to this same procedure being successfully?
Sig under construction since 1998.
I thought SCO was telling the truth the whole time. You mean to tell me that those bastardly socialist hackers have done nothing wrong? Impudence!
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
8. I have been retained by counsel for IBM in this lawsuit and am being compensated at a rate of $550 per hour.
20. These comparisons required on the order of 10 hours of computation time on a dual 3 GHz Xeon processor system with 2 GB of RAM. This is a high-end workstation routinely and easily available off the shelf from commercial vendors such as Dell.
At $550 per hour, I would've used something like a 386 processor with 8MB of RAM.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
What about these snippets? // /*f (...)
*/
while(1)
{
}
return(0);
return(1);
i
elseif (...)
else
And don't forget the white space! That is a clear copy!
... who wrote the comparator tool which was one of the two tools used in the analysis.
ESR deserves three cheers for 'scratching his itch', making a tool to compare copyrighted code. To have it actually used in the SCO case which was the annoying impetus for its creation (AFAICT) has to be a nice feeling.
I'm not an ESR fanboy, but I'll give him props when I think he deserves it and in this case I think he does.
--LP
That's ... that's ... that's because Randall Davis doesn't have the Secret SCO Decoder Ring (tm) (patent pending) (C 2004 SCO). The Decoder Ring ... it ... it detects our IP where no mere mortal could ever hope to find it!
... for a limited time only ... buy SCOSource licenses for 5 or more friends, and SCO will throw in a Secret SCO Decoder Ring (tm) (patent pending) (C 2004 SCO) at no additional charge!
And now
My name is Darl McBride, and I have authorized this message!
He goes into detail.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Since Dr. Randall Davis is an expert witness for IBM, I am guessing that SCO will say, "ain't so!" and then they will ask for time to refute Randall's findings and perhaps come up with an expert witness of their own that finds thousands of "matches." Hopefully the judge in this case will recognize Randall for the expert that he is and accept his findings. However, that just doesn't seem likely to me. This is just another round in a case that will continue like this ad nauseum.
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
1. Get Linux 2.6.8.1
2. Get Linux 2.4.0
3. left out as an exercise for the reader
4. Show positive result
5. Don't profit, but have fun.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
If I recall correctly, Randy told me that he has served as a special master in several cases.
Fight Spammers!
Novell. There's a lawsuit going on about the matter right now, but it looks like the Unix copyrights were never actually transfered from Novell to SCO.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
SCO: b-b-but, you're not supposed to use a COMPUTER SCIENTIST!
IBM: byte us.
stuff |
Although your deposition includes a description of your methodology, it does not indicate whether you established a proper baseline for comparison or how you calibrated your filter. I would be interested to know how far, in your direct experience, code can be modified before it fails to match COMPARATOR and SIM respectively. Furthermore, how closely does the point at which these tools fail to detect a match coincide with the legal Abstraction, Filtration, and Comparison test?
I do not fault your analysis; I would like to know more about your methodology, beyond the limited scope of the deposition.
-Hope
They're not quite dead yet.
SCO: I don't want to go on the cart!
Oh, don't be such a baby. You're not fooling anyone, you'll be stone dead in a moment.Suudsu, that stuff is G-E-W-D.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Citing the GPL:
Clear enough?extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
There are no American tanks in Baghdad!
They are nowhere near Baghdad.
Their forces committed suicide by the hundreds.... The battle is very fierce and God made us victorious. The fighting continues.
Ooops, wrong script. (fumbles with papers)
IBM is lying about the lack of stolen code.
We need another delay to find stolen code.
There can be no doubt that Linux contains stolen code.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer