Slashdot Mirror
Unsealed SCO Email Reveals Linux Code is Clean
rm69990 writes "In a recently unsealed email in the SCO vs. IBM case, it appears that an outside consultant, hired by SCO in 2002, failed to find copyright violations in the Linux Kernel. This was right around the time Darl McBride, who has before been hired by litigious companies as CEO, was hired. It appears that before SCO even began its investigation, they were hoping to find a smoking gun, not believing that Linux could possibly not contain Unix code. Apparently, they ignored the advice of this consultant."
this was ORIGINALLY a lawsuit about the derivative works from a company working with a Unix license that IBM bought.
1 70212250
0 22922296
what are you talking about? In their first filing,
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040704
their first cause of action was "Linux is full of UNIX, which belongs to us"
First cause of action - (Misappropriation of Trade Secrets--Utah Code Ann. 13-24-1 et seq.)
this is in reference to their placing UNIX code in linux... read the previous 103 statements to see what they are alleging.
in their second (and current) complaint, they keep it up!
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040207
3. A variant or clone of UNIX currently exists in the computer marketplace called "Linux." Linux is, in material part, based upon UNIX source code and methods.
4. The UNIX software distribution vendors, such as IBM, are contractually and legally prohibited from giving away or disclosing proprietary UNIX source code and methods for external business purposes, such as contributions to Linux, or from otherwise using UNIX for the benefit of others. This prohibition extends to derivative work products that are modifications of, or derivative works based on, UNIX System V source code or technology. IBM is violating this prohibition, en masse, as though no prohibition or proprietary restrictions exist at all with respect to the UNIX technology. As a result of IBM's wholesale disregard of its contractual and legal obligations to SCO, Linux 2.4.x and 2.6.x and the development Linux kernel, 2.5.x, are replete with protected technology. As such, the Linux 2.4.x and Linux 2.5.x and 2.6.x kernels are unauthorized derivatives of UNIX System V.
the are, have, and continue to claim that Linux is full of Unix, and that its a derivative because IBM put UNIX code in Linux.
That's the basics of their case, in a few words... they are hiding that contention behind their contracts with IBM. But how did they breach contract with SCO? - SCO alleges that they put UNIX in Linux.
If there is no illegal UNIX in Linux, then they've not breached any contracts, have they? To have breached contract, they would have had to have infringed on SCO's "UNIX copyrights"
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Advanced users are users too!
We now know for certain that Bush's statement was entirely accurate.
The British have consistently stood by that conclusion. In September 2003, an independent British parliamentary committee looked into the matter and determined that the claim made by British intelligence was "reasonable" (the media forgot to cover that one too). Indeed, Britain's spies stand by their claim to this day. Interestingly, French intelligence also reported an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium from Niger.
Yes, there were fake documents relating to Niger-Iraq sales. But no, those forgeries were not the evidence that convinced British intelligence that Saddam may have been shopping for "yellowcake" uranium. On the contrary, according to some intelligence sources, the forgery was planted in order to be discovered -- as a ruse to discredit the story of a Niger-Iraq link, to persuade people there were no grounds for the charge. If that was the plan, it worked like a charm.
But that's not all. The Butler report, yet another British government inquiry, also is expected to conclude this week that British intelligence was correct to say that Saddam sought uranium from Niger.
And in recent days, the Financial Times has reported that illicit sales of uranium from Niger were indeed being negotiated with Iraq, as well as with four other states.
According to the FT: "European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq."
Shocking. News. Ever.
-Valiss
Some of the players to watch:
Chairman
Ralph J. Yarro III
President, CEO, and Director
Darl C. McBride
CFO
Bert Young
-Valiss
Whether you're religious or not, Mormons are not the same as Christians.
As a Christian, I take exception to the idea that Bush is a religious leader. Frankly, I doubt I would agree with him on many points of theology; I disagree with him on many political points, too. Liberals tend to view Bush as a sort of Protestant Pope. That's utterly ridiculous. My religious beliefs inform my politics, not the other way around. The two are completely separate entities. Christianity is not necessarily a right wing religion; it calls out the shit on both sides of the spectrum, and demands perfection in what the two sides do correctly.
Groklaw is intermittantly slow for me (database problems or whatever) and so I want to make sure this can be read by all.
I'd have to say this looks pretty damning, all said--it shows they found nothing and persisted anyway... Lovely.
Some groups would like to change this, but if you get 25 years you're probably serving 25 years. H.R. 3072 is a bill to bring back parole, and as much as I hate people like Ebbers, its much needed when non-violent drug offenders spend their lives in prison because of the puritanical drug war.
The upside is that federal prisons tend to be a bit nicer than state prisons.
The current administration and Pentagon brass should read Charter of the International Military Tribunal
But hey, US has bullied most states/allies into agreements not extradite US citizens to the International Criminal Court. Of course, only low ranking service men/women are prosecuted in US for torture and other war crimes.
BSD. Duh.
He was SCO's chief architect during the early years. If anyone knows, it's him.
How about looking at the recent Downing Street memos from June 2005?
From the Christian Science Monitor
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/politics/31cnd-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-blair
HP never bought insurance from SCO. HP was going to, and then backed out at the last minute and announced indemnification for their customers.
Click here for story
HP probably felt that by paying the insurance instead of offering indemnification, they would be admitting guilt. They probably also have access to the source code and did their own audit of Linux and gave the green light.
I thought it was relatively well-known speculation that much of NT was ripped off from DEC's VMS, especially considering DEC filed suit against Microsoft and MS ended up settling out of court.
Do you have any links or references indicating that there were other sources for the claim that Saddam was trying get uranium from Niger, or are you just making unsupported claims to muddy the water? I recommend that you do a search on the web, not just a few blogs, and read the information that you find from a variety of sources. What I find is that the basis for the Bush Administration's claim that Saddam was seeking uranium from Iraq was information from the British goverment. The British government based it's information on a document that the IAEA was able to determine were forgeries in a few hours. Please note that this link is not from a site I frequent, just one of the first that came up with a goodle search. Also covered in that link is that "Well before the IAEA rained on the pro-war parade, the CIA was telling its masters in the Bush administration that the British intelligence on the Niger connection was nonsense." In otherwords the CIA was telling Bush that the intelligence was bad (as I mentioned), yet bush still included it in his SOTU Address. He lied.
Regarding Europes participation in the War in Iraq, I know it is easier to argue with someone when you put words in their mouth. Much easier than actually providing references and clearly arguing your points. However, I did not say they none of Europe participated. I would say that different countries in Europe made different decisions regarding participation in Iraq, and that some choose to participate with varying levels of committment. The main point I would make is that many of our previously staunch allies did not participate, and that, realistically, only England participated in a significant way. I know some might try to argue that their was a coalition of huge proportion, but only America had over 100K troops, and only America and England had over 10K troops, and everyone else was well below that, measured in the few thousand, a few hundred, or well wishes.
First Falcon-1 to orbit, then Falcon-9. Then I can die a happy man.
We can be quite confident that NT does not contain VMS code: VMS was written mostly in VAX assembly language. NT was written, I believe, mostly in C. In any case, one thing we can be sure of is that it was NOT written in VAX assembly language.
I'm not even sure that NT can be said to contain ideas proprietary to VMS. Is there any evidence of that? The general nature of VMS has been public knowledge since the outset, and as far as I know there is nothing in VMS that requires unusual algorithms or coding tricks that would make it hard to implement without detailed knowledge of the code. I'm no MS lover (and use no MS software), but I haven't heard anything that would make me thing that MS played dirty on this one.
"After the war began?" The inspections resumed in 2003, under the threat of war. Sure, we now realize that the White House had by that point decided that there would be an invasion, but it's the basis for that decision that's controversial. Thus, the original question stands: the inspectors were there, the world was watching, what was the rush?
(In answering that question, the contemporary pro-war mindset concentrated on two general points: one was that the UN inspectors wouldn't find anything anyway because the UN is a pack of America-hating sissies so can't we hurry up and have our war; the second was the 45 MINUTES FROM DOOM baloney. The first point effectively begged the question; the second was more of that brilliant intelligence analysis that's been such a hallmark of the War on Terra.)
Mind the Gap
Never claimed to be. However, the majority of this conversation does not need a 5000 year perspective - a 3 year perspective is quite informative on it's own.
Of course, when there is an imminent threat the US, the military should be used to counteract that threat. However, even if the intelligence that Saddam had limited quantities of WMDs and Uranium yellow cake had been true (it wasn't) and the intelligence indicating didn't have those things was false (it wasn't) he was still not an imminent threat to the US. Why do I say that? He had no ability to deliver these WMDs to the US, no ability to process the Uranium, and was not cooperating with Al Quada to deliver these to the US. Who was an imminent threat?
However, instead of addressing these issues, we have over-extended our military to attack the country that was the least likely to be a threat to the US.
Interesting background - I appreciate the information. However, the difference here is we didn't decide to go to war or not based on the intelligence gleaned from Enigma. We based strategic and tactical decisions based on it. Huge difference.
Yes, many people had concerns, but they also had concerns about the validity of the intelligence. Say I have concerns that the guy across the street is dealing drugs - no concrete proof, but some indications that he is and some indications that he is not. Do I try and blow up his house? No, I call the police, and hope they search his house for drugs and drug paraphenalia - just as the weapon inspectors were searching for WMDs and associated infrastructure.
Of course this was a case of misdirection and lying and smokescreens. However, there was no concrete evidence of WMDs in spite of years of inspections. And there was no imminent threat from Saddam, so why go to war?
So I am a bit unclear on your point here? The Bush administration was suckered by Saddam into thinking that he had WMDs, so they aren't lying? Ok, I will revise my statement - The Bush administration was either lieing or incompetent.
First Falcon-1 to orbit, then Falcon-9. Then I can die a happy man.