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."

Comments

Don't forget...

[SCO$699FeeTroll]

...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.

Re:Don't forget...

[Trumpetgod2k1]

For once, this is on topic.

Re:Don't forget...

[Alien Being]

"cock-smoking teabagger"

African or European?

Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[nokilli]

Quoting Darl McBride:

"We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code... we're finding code that looks likes it's been obfuscated to make it look like it wasn't UnixWare code--but it was."

Quoting George Bush:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

I want to pre-answer the next "Ask Slashdot" question: How do you build a bullshit detector? Well, you get a cardboard box, and you get a magic marker. You use the magic marker to draw a dial on the box where one end is labeled TRUE and the other end is labeled BULLSHIT.

Then you draw a needle on the dial that points to BULLSHIT.

Then whenever you hear anybody on the TV who has the word 'CHIEF' or 'EXECUTIVE' or 'OFFICER' in their title, you point the box at the TV and there's your answer.

(also works with radio, newspapers and the Internet. Patent Pending of course.)

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[nokilli]

It isn't unrelated. Why do you think people like Darl McBride feel that they can get away with shit like this?

Because that's the example that's been set at the top.

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[Shag]

Wait... does this mean McBride and Bush aren't the same person? Has anyone seen them together?

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap it works, you should patent it.

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[pinchhazard]

Yes, jobs and pensions lost == blowjobs and of course, deaths in Iraq == blowjobs. Of course Ebbers and Lay and Bush and company are on the same level as Clinton.

Just kidding: those first three guys are pretty evil.

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[rocker_wannabe]

Get real! It's not all BULLSHIT! Some of it is just plain lies!

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[Martin Blank]

And yet SCO's allegations in the lawsuit are equal to war in Iraq? Somehow I'm missing where the former rises to the level of the latter.

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[jarich]

Get real! It's not all BULLSHIT! Some of it is just plain lies!

That's right.. like "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[Martin Blank]

I trust that you are unfamiliar with my political positions, and have incorrectly expanded upon one point to extrapolate my entire ideology. Please allow me to clarify:

• I supported the removal of Saddam Hussein, but I have since the first Gulf War. I don't feel that this was the best timing, as a lot of those soldiers should have been in Afghanistan looking for senior al Qaeda operatives. At the very least, waiting until it was possible to end the war going into cooler months would have led to fewer Iraqis mad at the beginning about not being able to get air conditioning in the summer.
  
  
• I feel that if Karl Rove knew what he was doing, and I suspect he was, that he should be fired and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including fines and prison. If somehow it comes around that the leak was traceable to President Bush, then I feel he should be impeached and removed from office. You don't mess with the lives of covert operatives, whether or not they're in the field at the time.
  
  
• I voted for Perot in 92 and 96, and wrote in McCain in 2000. I did not vote for Bush in 2004, though to be honest, I could not vote for anyone on the list in 2004, because I could not support any of them in good conscience. I did, however, vote on almost everything else on the ballot, with the possible exception of a water commissioner.
  
  
• I support the right to choose, and I detest the Patriot Act.
  
  
• I support wholesale overhaul of copyright legislation to bring it back down to a reasonable time limit of, say, 30 years or so.
  
  
• I support tightening of requirements for issuing a patent.
  
  
• I am leaning towards support of reviews of prices charged on prescription medications in the United States. Haven't quite made up my mind on that one, though.
  
  
• I have no desire to be in a union, but I have no problem with people forming them, just so long as I have the right to opt out of them, or at least to choose how my union dues are spent.
  
  
• I support the right to bear arms as an individual right, but I support background checks to help ensure that felons have less chance to get them. I also support full prosecution of those felons that try to purchase them.
  
  
• I support raising the mileage requirements on light trucks and SUVs.
  
  
• I am skeptical of global warming claims, but I also choose to play it safe and support the development of alternative energy forms, particularly nuclear energy. If global warming is found to be true, then we're moving ahead on reducing sources. If it's found to be false, then we still have cleaner air.
  
  
• I don't like liars in the White House, whoever they are. There's a difference between hiding secret operations vital to national security (even if they're in a gray area legally) and lying about things happening that should not be. I was too young to be bothered much by Iran-Contra, though I probably would have been in retrospect. There were things in the Bush '88 administration that began to bother me. Clinton was sleazy and everyone knew it, but he was also as teflon-coated as Reagan was. I'm still not convinced that there wasn't more going on there that we really should know about. I'm sure we'll find out in the next 25-75 years.

So now that you know a little more about me, please keep it in mind the next time that you feel the need to jerk that knee and label me a "fringe partisan." :)

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[anagama]

That's right.. like "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

I long for the days of a president who got a bit of nookie on the side. It's a far better situation than a president who fucks us over, fucks others over, and generates piles of dead bodies. On the other hand, my fossil fuel stocks have been kickin' ass -- even with today's hit on speculation China will not consume as much oil as it has been. Anyway ... if Bush spent more time getting laid instead of boosting profits for his oil cronies, the world would be a better place (and my portfolio worth less -- some cognitive dissonance here but not much -- I'd prefer lower profits and more peace).

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[brandido]

Sorry to get off topic here, but I cannot let such a pathetic comparison stand.

Are you seriously saying that since Clinton lied about getting a blowjob, it is OK that the Bush administration lied about intelligence to justify going to war? Don't forget, Clinton got impeached for his lie by the House, but not convicted by the Senate. Given the fact that the repurcussions of Bush's lie is so much greater (we are at fucking war and there was no uranium purchased from Africa, no WMDs, no connection to 9/11), shouldn't the consequences be greater? Maybe Impeachment, Conviction and Jail time? I would say one day for each death that has occurred during the Iraq war - that should work out to between 30 to 300 years.

Sorry to not have much of a sense of humor about this, but the repurcussions of this lie are just too tragic and painful.

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[jericho4.0]

Where's Osama? Who cares? The values that built your nation, and that drew all eyes in admiration, are going fast.

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[Martin Blank]

Part of it was matters of scale. I don't think anything in the legal industry right now -- SCO, Adelphia, Enron, or WorldCom -- scales to a war, and as such, I think such comparisons are inappropriate and designed mostly to garner karma from the anti-conservative Slashdot crowd.

Aside from that, the same crowd that lambasts Bush for 'allowing' the various scandals that erupted after he took office (including the three I mentioned) all really built up during the Clinton administration, something they seem to ignore. For that matter, Ebbers was driving companies into the ground back when Reagan was in office, so there's something to say about the government's (in)ability to keep track of this no matter who is in office. If they're going to blame the Bush administration for allowing deception to become acceptable because it's "the example that's been set at the top," they need to keep in mind that the example is not new to the current occupants of the White House.

I will admit that I was unclear in things. While my intentions were not trolling as I see them, such posts are often seen as trolls by much of the mainstream Slashdot crowd. But sometimes one man's intentions to provoke thought are another man's begging food for the troll.

I also commend you greatly for keeping an open mind, and being mature enough to be able to bring up a rational conversation after your initial response. I took no offense at it, primarily because my political thoughts are all over the place as demonstrated above, and as such I am routinely chased by conservatives and liberals wielding devices intended to induce mass conflagrations upon my person. I simply clarify my views, and hope that others understand me better later on. I am pleased to find another one. People such as you are rare. In fact, I think I shall add you as a friend -- my first one ever. :)

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[Martin Blank]

I do. In the US, passenger cars have to have a certain mileage level, or else taxes are applied. IIRC, this is an average, so that while most cars fall into the higher range, the high-powered, less-efficient cars like Corvettes can still be made and sold without significant penalty.

For a very long time, light trucks made up only a small segment of auto sales, and so were exempt because they were very often used commercially, and the benefits of commerce outweighed their smaller contribution to pollution. (Just about every Little League baseball team also seemed to have a team mom with a Suburban, and it was cool having all twelve kids pile in for the after-game pizza party.)

With the introduction of the traditional SUV (built on truck frames and so regulated as such), and the improved handling of trucks, they became far more popular, but political pressure has left them exempt from mileage requirements. They make up something near to half of all auto sales now, though, so they really should fall within the the same limits, at least in spirit, as autos. I understand that they will not catch up with the mileage of smaller cars for the most part, but some things can be done. I'm just not sure whether forcing the issue is the best idea.

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[brandido]

You do bring up an interesting point - it is possible that Bush and his administration believed that Saddam possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. However, there are many problems with this:

• Bush had indicated previously that he wanted to attack Iraq.
• The Neo-cons had previously indicated that they wanted to attack Iraq.
• Bush had previously indicated that he wanted to be a war president
• There was a ton of information available that Saddam did not have WMDs, but this information, and the people who presented this information, was ignored and attacked by the administration.

Also, I didn't believe that Saddam had WMDs - I believed that he wanted them, but I thought it was extremely unlikely that he would be able to hide the WMDs and the infrastructure necessary to produce them from a dedicated multi-year search. Afterall, if the Bush administration had such clear intelligence that Saddam had the WMDs, why couldn't they share that information with the Weapon inspectors?

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[brandido]

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.

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[DikSeaCup]

Basically you're saying that *someone's* going to get fucked by the President ... better it be an intern than the rest of us?

I think I can agree with that.

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[benzapp]

Afterall, if the Bush administration had such clear intelligence that Saddam had the WMDs, why couldn't they share that information with the Weapon inspectors?

Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors when Clinton was president. From 1998 until the war began in 2003, there were no inspectors in the country. Further, he didn't offer to bring them back until the invasion was imminent with a carrier group in the persian gulf.

While I think the entire war was a mistake, critical misunderstandings and outright lies such as this are rife in this entire debate. All your post has done is provide more evidence that when it comes down to it, partisan politics is more important than truth. You hate Bush, and thus your are special. You get to enjoy feeling of belonging that comes with sharing the views of almost every academic and media personality in the country.

Meanwhile, human civilization is on the verge of collapse and democrats and republicans profit from it all.

You are part of the problem, just as much as Bush is part of the problem.

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[Eric S. Smith]

if the Bush administration had such clear intelligence that Saddam had the WMDs, why couldn't they share that information with the Weapon inspectors?

Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors when Clinton was president. From 1998 until the war began in 2003, there were no inspectors in the country. Further, he didn't offer to bring them back until the invasion was imminent with a carrier group in the persian gulf.

"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.)

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[glesga_kiss]

Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors when Clinton was president. From 1998 until the war began in 2003, there were no inspectors in the country.

Prior to 1998, there weren't any inspectors either. They were inteligence officers who were only interested in Saddams whereabouts for a surgical hit. That's WHY they got kicked out.

All your post has done is provide more evidence that when it comes down to it, partisan politics is more important than truth.

Not all of us hail from the USA, so your argument is pointless. Under clinton, I didn't care what you did. Under Bush, you have destabilized the entire middle east, and now MY home country is being attacked by terrorists (UK). Tony Blair (& Bush) told us all that we need to invade Iraq to improve our own safety. Nice going Tony, I feel safer already.

Either Bush & Blair were outright deliberately misleading people (I wouldn't say lie, politicians know how to do that without actually lying) due to the overwhelming voice of those that said 9-11 and WMD claims are bogus. OR they are terminally stupid. The outcome of the highly profitable Iraq conquest was ENTIRELY predicatble. The increased hatred, long-term "peace keeping" mission, Vietnam II. The Iraqi's still have the inevitable civil war to look forward to when we do pull out. It's a screw-up from day one and it was ALWAYS going to be a screw up. Even Bush himself said in 2000 that "nation building" was not easy and something the US should NOT be involved in. Of course, when your election campaign is financed by the Project for a New American Century, they you have to do what the puppeteer tells you.

So, look at it from my point of view. I don't give a fuck about Republicans and Democrats. But what I do see is one president getting the sack because he lied so his wife wouldn't find out about a BJ. The other has killed thousands with his "lies". What the hell do you want us to think? US politians use the whole "partisan" logic to dismiss suggestions based on where they are from, rather than arguing the point instead. That's been the downfall of your pretend "democracy" and it always will. Democracy is not a two party system!

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty

[brandido]

Clearly you have no historical context on the last 5000 years of military history.

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?

• Osama Bin Laden. He had shown the capability to attack the US.
• North Korea. Has the ability to build nuclear bombs, and has shown a pre-disposition to seelign weapons to "rogue" nations. Durring Bush's watch, has gone from threatening to build weapons to likely having weapons.
• Iran. Actively developing capability to build nuclear weapons.

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.

Military intelligence is the art of guessing the other side's secrets, and at essentially no point has there been a case of any military intelligence organization that knew all of the other side's secrets. Even in World War II when the Allies had cracked the Enigma code, that didn't allow them to discover all of Nazi Germany's military secrets, though it did allow them to find out a treasure trove of operational intelligence (which was the main use of Enigma).

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.

In the case of the Iraq WMD issue, there were a lot of people looking at the same intelligence - including both Republicans and Democrats (including John Kerry BTW), the UN, the major European powers, etc. Everyone who looked at it had some degree of concern that Iraq was interested in WMD's - and Saddam didn't do much to dissuade from that conclusion.

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.

Remember that the other side in any conflict isn't just going to let their secrets be an open book ... The point is that both sides are deliberatly trying to mislead each other.

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?

If one side does in fact get misled, does that mean that they are lying or does it mean that they made a mistake in analysis or judgement, or that the other side's ruse was complete? Unless there's clear evidence that all indications were pointing against WMD's, I don't think it's at all a fair characterization that Bush was "lying"

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.

Interesting

[BWJones]

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."

Gee, that sounds familiar. Seems to be a popular strategy in both business and *cough*cough*cough, government these days. Seriously though, this is a model that does appear to have some traction in a variety of fields in that if you press your case hard enough, and you convince enough of the right people, there is ground to be gained from simply sticking to your guns no matter what the reality happens to be. In my business, when you have a theory, you design an experiment to test it and collect data in an attempt to disprove that theory. When the data supports the theory, then you are golden. The way NOT to run business, science (or government) is to come up with a theory (or a desire) and then try to fit the evidence to support what you want. This of course is exactly what has happened with the SCO case, a couple of other business debacles in the news recently and interestingly, in the hunt for WMD in Iraq.

Re:Interesting

[the_mighty_$]

this is a model that does appear to have some traction in a variety of fields in that if you press your case hard enough, and you convince enough of the right people, there is ground to be gained from simply sticking to your guns no matter what the reality happens to be

Important note: whenever a business/government tries this horrible tactic, they always fail. SCO's case is (has) colapsed, people all around the world view the US government as untrustworthy, etc. Sometimes it takes a while, but they always lose in the end.

News stories like this are just a nice reminder to everyone not to try tactics like this.

Re:Interesting

[adamy]

I served. I vote.

I don't agree with that saying though. People who server in the military learn to take orders, perhaps really dumb orders. I don't want a society filled with those people; I am afraid we may have just that anyway.

Re:Interesting

[Cecil]

So, you're saying you want to live in a banana republic, basically? I believe there are certain founding documents that say something about 'the will of the people', not the 'will of the military and ex-military'.

Re:Interesting

[_Sprocket_]

I don't agree with that saying though. People who server in the military learn to take orders, perhaps really dumb orders. I don't want a society filled with those people; I am afraid we may have just that anyway.

I served. I vote. And I don't agree with the parent because that's not how our government works. It sure as hell isn't the government I served to protect.

I have to wonder what branch of Service you came from. In the Air Force, my professional military education covered the concept of the "lawfull order" multiple times. Maybe your branch of service doesn't teach about the Nuremberg Trials? This alone introduces the concept that one does not blindly follow orders. Hardly the unthinking zombie military you imply.

It might also be worth stressing that during my career, I was encouraged to be involved in the political process. But at the same time, there was no direction as to what that involvement should be or what political interests should be supported. My education also included stressing a seperation between the uniform and individual political activity.

It's a shame your outfit wasn't of the same calibre... or you ignored some valuable lessons.

Re:Interesting

[vertinox]

My friend in the Army told me about how they had persons for Bush come around and encourage them to vote for him come election time. He had a high opinion of his unit from what I heard, but he didn't like the politics involved in the system mostly involving pay and leave and other promotions issues.

I had a relative on the other hand was in the Marines, he didn't think highly of his superiors and called them a bunch of Communists and brainwashers. He served his 4 years all the way to the end (he guarded Navel ships in the middle east bases before 2002 so was a bit jumpy), but his personal opinion was that you needed to people to make decisions on their own rather than follow orders since often times you will be in a situation in combat where you don't have time to call to get orders.

Re:Interesting

[Homology]

Maybe your branch of service doesn't teach about the Nuremberg Trials?

The current administration and Pentagon brass should read Charter of the International Military Tribunal

ARTICLE 6

The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution
of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.

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.

Re:Interesting

[Charles W Griswold]

So SCO should try to prove that there *isn't* Unix code in Linux?

No. They should try to find out *whether* there is Unix code in Linux. But, instead of trying to find the truth, they levelled baseless allegations of copyright infringement and then tried to make their allegations seem true.

Personally, I think that Redhat, IBM, and anyone else doing Linux development should sue SCO for libel. Then they should force SCO to open its own code to scrutiny, so that we can find out if there is any Linux code in Unix. Hey, turnabout is fair play, right?

Re:Interesting

[Charles W Griswold]

Of all the bumper stickers I have ever seen, the one on my truck annoys the most people.
It simply says "If you didn't serve, don't vote"
I am tired of these namby pamby arm chair quarterbacks talking tough but scared to put on a uniform

You served in the military, I take it. If so, then you must have sworn an oath to protect the constitution. Yet, here you are telling people they don't have a right to vote when the constitution clearly says that they do. Nice, real nice. Ever heard of the word "hypocrit"?

Yeah, here you are talking tough, but you're too scared say who you are, you Anonymous Coward.

Re:Interesting

[adamy]

I was in the Army, and was an officer. I am well versed in the concept of a legal order. An order can be both legal and dumb.

I don't think it is healthy for the citizens of a free country to be beaten into submission as is done to people in basic training. Yes, we need people, good people, in our armed forces. We also need people in our society that have nothing to do with the military.

BTW, my outfit was the United States Military Academy at West Point. Class of 1993. And I'll be damned if I agree with anyone that says that unit is of lower calibre (I like your British spelling) than any unit in the Military.

Re:Interesting

[Rob_Bryerton]

I usually thank people who have served our country, but never someone such as yourself, what with your arrogance and weird, misplaced sense of entitlement. Why do you think you're special? Because you did your job? Get a grip...

What's with the cowards who are *so* convinced of their stance, yet they're afraid and/or ashamed to post using even a pseudonym? Coward. That's right, you're a coward, hiding.

Now go ahead mods, do your thing & mod this as a troll because you disagree with me and I'm not PC. Then afterwards you can go look up Troll and learn what it really means. (Here's a hint kids: it does not mean "one who holds opposing views")

Re:Interesting

[_Sprocket_]

I don't think it is healthy for the citizens of a free country to be beaten into submission as is done to people in basic training. Yes, we need people, good people, in our armed forces. We also need people in our society that have nothing to do with the military.

I completely agree. Like I said earlier - the grandparent's post is wrong. Our system does not require one to serve to have a voice. And nor should it.

What I resent is the implication that Active Duty or former military personel lack the ability to apply individual or critical thought. The "beating in to submission" doesn't seem to hold. There seemed to be a vetting time after Basic Training where one begins to adjust to the "real" military. That's not to say the overall training doesn't have some effect - I haven't been in any civilian group that's operated like a military one. Completely different culture and structure. But somewhere in there, individuals who are smart enough to do so regain their ability to think critically. That's not always appreciated nor welcomed by the brass - just as its not always appreciated in the civilian sector. But in any case, critical thought does re-engange. I've worked with plenty of Active Duty and met plenty of ex-military to note more than a few critical thinkers in the lot.

No Linux copyright violation, film at 11

[Toby The Economist]

Is this really still news?

--
Toby

Re:No Linux copyright violation, film at 11

[MightyMartian]

It shouldn't be. We've known since almost the beginning that SCO, whose business was drying up, had invented the whole thing in the hopes that IBM would either simply buy them out or settle the case. They didn't seem to realize that Big Blue had decided that Linux was such a major part of their strategy that they'd be willing to say "See you in court". Hopefully this can all be ended so that we can watch the SEC investigation. Maybe McBride can become good buddies with Ebbers, and Ebbers can give him tips on how to have a "serious heart condition" right about the time sentencing begins.

Re:No Linux copyright violation, film at 11

[Gogo Dodo]

What is news is that this is evidence that SCO knew a long time ago there was no copyright violations.

Summary

[gunpowda]

not believing that Linux could possibly not contain Unix code. Is there any more awkward way that could have been expressed?

The nail in the coffin?

[bhsx]

Probably not. This whole thing is still going to take another year or so to play out. Not the SCO has a snowball's chance; but they'll keep going at least until their "prepaid" lawyers run out on them. Hopefully that'll happen before they get to court. Actually, hopefully not, as if they were to quit halfway through the court procedings the judge would probably ask the bar association to investigate them. F*cking lawyers, er rather, THESE f*cking lawyers.

Re:The nail in the coffin?

[MightyMartian]

No, you had it right the first time, it's "F*cking lawyers"..

Christ Almighty! You mean we're letting them breed???? Have we learned nothing from the Black Death?

Yet more proof

[WilliamSChips]

Yet more proof that the Googlebomb calling SCO "litigious bastards" is correct.

Maybe now the case will be dismissed...

Re:Yet more proof

[Rei]

The funny thing is, the campaign didn't just googlebomb the phrase "litigious bastards" - it even bombed the word litigious by itself. :)

Re:Yet more proof

[WilliamSChips]

it also bombed bastards, didn't it?

Re:Yet more proof

[Pensacola Tiger]

Hell no, we don't want the case merely dismissed; we want a summary judgement in favor of IBM and a legal decision that there is no UNIX code in Linux. Otherwise some other bunch of 'litigious bastards' will try the same scam again. Icing on the cake would be prison terms for the tSCOg executives and sanctions against Boies and company.

Re:Yet more proof

[zippthorne]

Wait.. are you trying to re-googlebomb the phrase litigious bastards to associated with the google search for the phrase litigious bastards?

Woah. Meta.

Making Sure The Guilty Pay Their Price

[Anonymous Coward]

As SCO continues to desintigrate, it is import to keep an eye those responsible who worked there as they try to find their way back into the respectable computing world.

No one should be able to participate in a sickeningly slezy shakedown like SCO tried to pull off and just wash their hands and pretend it never happended.

Of course not everyone associated with SCO is guilty of sleaze but keeping an eye out for key SCO people and either making sure they don't get hired or at least making it known to companies that would think of hiring the scumbags it isn't worth the bad press/karma.

Re:Making Sure The Guilty Pay Their Price

[MightyMartian]

I'm eagerly awaiting the outcry from the severely handicapped investors who thought it was a real good idea to invest in a company whose business plan was "we're going to threaten potential customers with spurious claims and sue IBM". These investors deserve to lose their shirts. Perhaps we can parade them around with name tags like "Joe Smoe - SCO Investor and Moron" or "Janet Doe - Bought SCO Stock and Now Lives in a Cardboard Box Next to the Dumpster".

Re:Making Sure The Guilty Pay Their Price

[Valiss]

Some of the players to watch:

Chairman
Ralph J. Yarro III

President, CEO, and Director
Darl C. McBride

CFO
Bert Young

Re:Making Sure The Guilty Pay Their Price

[stor]

You forgot:

- Microsoft
- Sun Microsystems

Cheers
Stor

Re:Making Sure The Guilty Pay Their Price

[nsayer]

There's an opportunity here: Someone should make a SCO "wanted deck" of playing cards like they did for Saddam's buddies and sell them on ThinkGeek. Clearly Darl should be the Ace of Spades. The trouble is, I'm not sure there are 52 culprits. Still...

Re:Making Sure The Guilty Pay Their Price

[gad_zuki!]

Also, their legal team should be forced to testify to reveal if they knew about this consultant, and if so why they continued these lawsuits with this information. If there's going to be a chilling effect on this madness, the lawyers should not get a free ride. They do not belong in the Bar association if they were doing McBride's bidding the whole time.

This country needs to be cleaned out. Its starting. We got Ebbers on the finacial front, along with Arther Anderson. Soon we'll have Rove or someone from the WH on the political front. Now McBride on the tech front and his lawyers on the legal front.

So much corruption, but at least some opportunities are opening and making an example out of these people goes a long way towards justice and keeping others from doing the same.

Shareholder SUits

[PingXao]

Bwahahaha! Hopefully this revelation will lead to a bunch of lawsuits against the directors and officers of SCO for willful malfeasance. This may be the opening that allows them to pierce the corporate veil and go after them personally. Darl is not the only one richly deserving of jail time.

What would happen to UnixWare and OpenServer?

[CyricZ]

Now that it looks like their case is beyond salvation, and suppose they were to lose their lawsuit and become financially void, what would happen to the UnixWare and OpenServer codebases? Would they be transferred to one of TSG's debitors?

Indeed, if IBM did happen to acquire the rights to UnixWare and OpenServer via such means, then it would be very helpful to the community if they released the source code to both products. Of course, Novell's involvement may sticky things up a bit. But it would be great to have the systems available to the community.

Being a former sysadmin of SCO systems, I remember them fondly from the late 1980s and early 1990s. With some community-based work, they could easily be made useful again today. On older systems they would fly, thus making obsolete hardware usable again.

Re:What would happen to UnixWare and OpenServer?

[MightyMartian]

2003 SCO sues IBM for breech of contract.
2004 It is revealed that SCO is getting money from Microsoft through indirect means.
2005 A memo reveals that SCO knew all along that there was no copyrighted code in Linux.
2006 Case against IBM dismissed, SCO files for bankruptcy, split up. Unix rights bought by OSC.
2007 OSC sues IBM for breach of contract.
2008 It is revealed that OSC is getting money from Microsoft through indirect means.
2009 A memo reveals that OSC knew all along that there was no copyrighted code in Linux.
2010 Case against IBM dismissed, OSC files for bankruptcy, split up. Unix rights bought COS.
2011 COS sues IBM for breach of contract.
2012 It is revealed that COS is getting money from Microsoft through indirect means.
2013 A memo reveals that COS knew all along that there was no copyrighted code in Linux.
2014 Case against IBM dismissed, COS files for bankruptcy, split up. Unix rights bought by CSO.

Re:What would happen to UnixWare and OpenServer?

[TedTschopp]

Unix rights bought COS

The Church of Scientology buys the rights to Unix. Ok, Stop the ride, where do I get off.

Re:What would happen to UnixWare and OpenServer?

[ggvaidya]

2015 Unix becomes self-aware, after the entire fortune database is accidently plugged into a neural simulator. People panic and try to pull the plug, but the computer sends e-mails threatening lawsuits against Microsoft and IBM simulataneously. The subsequent surge of lawyers destroys life on Earth as we know it - except for a small band of dedicated rag-tag army, fighting bravely against the machines.
2017 A plot to send a robot back in time to kill Linus Torvalds is thwarted by the computer, which sends Richard Stallman back in time to save him.
2021 Unix attempts to apt-get install kde. The dependency hell destroys the computer. The rag-tag army rejoices, only to be destroyed by a passing meteor. Beavers inherit the earth.
3003 A superintelligent group of beavers invent Unix, the greatest operating system ever to walk the Earth. Another, slightly less intelligent group, sue the second group for breach of contract. And the cycle continues ...

Hardly unlikely.

[A nonymous Coward]

But not unpossible.

Don't get your hopes up...

[James A. D. Joyce]

...as much as I'd love for SCO to get their arses handed to them, I wouldn't get excited until their suit is actually thrown out of court.

advice to McBride....

[The Lynxpro]

Tune in the news and pay attention to the video images of Bernie Edwards going to jail for 25 years. Now, go down to your local "adult" store and buy some lube in preparation for your own date with justice.

Re:advice to McBride....

[CyricZ]

Err, you mean Bernie Ebbers. But the real question is: will he actually spend 25 years in jail? That's doubtful. It wouldn't be surprising if he was actually out within 2 or 3 years, and back at the helm of some corporation within half a decade from now. CEOs are never held truly accountable for their actions. It won't happen with Ebbers, and it won't happen with McBridge. That is just a flaw with the system.

Re:advice to McBride....

[paulbd]

the jury found him guilty of, in essence, destroying the livelihoods not to mention the pensions of thousands of people. ebbers has caused more misery than most serial killers will ever manage to. i don't know what a suitable sentence really is, but it sure as hell isn't a couple of years.

SCO lies....

[Rick Zeman]

...and in other news, kitten naps.....

Operating systems are Black Magic, Toqueville says

[Theovon]

I talked at length with that guy from the Toqueville institute. I tried and tried to explain that Linux is just a kernel, only a small part of an OS, and that anyone with a decent CS education is taught everything they need to know to develop a kernel as simple as the first Linux kernel that Linus wrote. I explained that Linux is a social phenomenon more than a technical achievement, because, conceptually, kernels just aren't such a big deal (although debugging them is a hassle, well handled by the 'many eyes' of the community).

No matter what I said, he was not able to grasp it. He just could not believe that one guy could write an OS kernel. But he really didn't understand what a kernel is either, so that was a bit of a barrier also. The fact that various CS professors had come out and said the same thing didn't faze him.

Darl McBride is just another non-technical businessman who thinks that operating systems are black magic that only huge teams of people can write. His reasoning leads him to believe that if "one guy" did it, but one guy really couldn't have done it, then he must have copied it. Pure, simple, logical, but unsound in that it completely doesn't account for just how simple or complex a kernel is.

Just like how some people can't possibly understand how a piston engine works, some people aren't cut out to grok OS kernels. Darl just doesn't have the brains for it. (Plus, his primary motivation is to make money, not actually UNDERSTAND anything.)

Re:So we like consultants now?

[gsfprez]

this was ORIGINALLY a lawsuit about the derivative works from a company working with a Unix license that IBM bought.

what are you talking about? In their first filing,

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200407041 70212250

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=200402070 22922296

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"

Rhetorical question? Practical answer

[twilight30]

'And why did Darl tell the world, and Congress, that because Linux was written by volunteers, there was no way to know if it was clean code, that it was a "free-for-all", that "there's not a policeman to check in the code at the Linux kernel level to ensure that there are not violations", when they already knew that it presented very clear evidence of purity?'

Because Darl is a lying cunt, that's why.

so what would be good punishment for Darl?

[ChipMonk]

Maybe, having to put "Sank Sunbeam and The SCO Group through excessive litigation" on his resume, and a special "Ambulance Chaser" license plate on his car.

Hmmmm...

[frank_adrian314159]

Should I be happy because someone ignored a consultant or sad that they caused so much trouble by doing so? Decisions, decisions...

Re:Bullshit Detector

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try, but Bezos already patented it...

Re:Jail time

[bigberk]

possibility that they deliberately inflated the stock price with their claims

Of course they did! That's how it's done in the stock market. You have to understand this before you ever touch a stock trading screen. Even if an executive knows that their business is dead, as long as they can prop up public perception (lawsuits, advertising, stunts) they can prop up the stock price. Then the insiders exit either directly or indirectly, and once that is done it no longer happens what happens to the corporation because those in the know have saved their butts. When SCOX was reaching new highs I kept telling people this was a short opportunity from heaven; it was classic pump-and-dump and all you needed was a little computer knowledge to be able to tell fact from fiction. I doubt McBride ever thought linux licensing was sane and I doubt he thought he would get away with the lawsuits. BUT the news tricked the public into buying SCOX shares, which was all that was needed

OpenSource questioned also

[kyndig]

I believe the way the open-source community works right now has some fundamental flaws that have got to be addressed. We need to address how this open-source intellectual property is developed, routed, and sold. Thousands of software developers send code to contribute to open-source projects -- but there isn't a protective device for the customer using the software to ensure they're not in violation of the law by using stolen code.

In tracking this roller coaster, it hadn't occurred to me till just now that the overall target isn't Linux itself, rather the Open Source movement. I see more concern in this statement about Open Source development, than I do about Linux code infringement.

Or is Open Source questioning just an added bonus tacked onto SCO claims.

SCO doesn't use SCO products within SCO?

[CyricZ]

Notice the forwarded email from Michael Davidson to Reg Broughton contains the email header
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I).

That is very interesting, indeed. Why would SCO be using Windows 98 machines internally? Indeed, one would expect them to be using SCO UnixWare.

Re:SCO doesn't use SCO products within SCO?

[WilliamSChips]

Do you expect everyone at Cessna to fly to work?

No, but I'd expect, say, everyone at Delta Airlines to fly Delta to business trips.

Everyone at LL Bean to live in a tent?

No, but I'd expect them to use tents by LL Bean when they go camping.

Just because your company makes a product doesn't mean that everybody at the company should use it for all purposes.

But I'd expect a large percentage of the computers from a computer OS company to be running that OS. (The ones that aren't would probably be for market research)

What!?!?!

[kamg]

I am SHOCKED! Shocked, I tell you!!!

In response to the yawns...

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Virtually every news item posted here can start a flamewar. Amidst the Microsoft bashing, several voices will point out good things they have done. Praise or bash the iPod, and you will generate a response. It's nice to see that there is one thing that unites us all, liberal/conservative, Apple fan/hater, and that is the universal agreement that Darl is scum.

There are very few universally accepted truths in this world, and it is nice to be reminded of them once in a while.

Re:Perhaps more interesting than the email itself.

[ValentineMSmith]

I've got mod points today, but I think I'll reply rather than modding you down to the oblivion you deserve. The reason that it looks like it was printed off and scanned into a computer is...

Because it was printed off and scanned into a computer (and no, it is not fake).

The document was submitted in printed form as part of the discovery process. The clerk of the court then took the document and scanned it in as a PDF, allowing an image of the original (as opposed to an OCR'ed copy) to be stored electronically. This version of the document is the one released to the public on demand. Doing it this way is

• more economical
• more environmentally conscious
• easier to distribute

than trying to photocopy originals of all of these documents.

Insurance

[Locke2005]

There was, at one stage, the idea that we would sell licenses to corporate customers who were using Linux as a kind of "insurance policy" in case it turned out that they were using code which infringed our copyright...

Yeah, I got a friend named Guido who sells "insurance policies" too... his catch phrase is "Nice place you've got here... be a shame if anything should happen to it!"

Am I misreading the law, or does this actually qualify as extortion?

Wait!!!!!

[Laura_DilDio]

But what about all the journalists (some call me that..but basically I'm a paid MonkeySoft shill) that SCO invited to see examples of infringing code. I know we had to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so I can't talk about what I saw, but believe me there was lots of powerpoint slides!!!

...relax and enjoy

[jfengel]

Dude, you're too focused on ends. Enjoy the process.

Each day brings a new humilation to Darl McBride. Treasure this moment, because all too soon the case will be thrown out of court and then you won't have Darl to kick around any more.

So just relax and enoy, and don't be so focused on the final result. (No, your girlfriend didn't pay me to say that.)

Re:Perhaps more interesting than the email itself.

[mabinogi]

if you read the article properly, you'd see that they actually _say_ it was scanned in.

This is a paper exhibit, which Frank Sorenson obtained from the court, scanned for us, and did the HTML. There are misspellings in the original. Thank you, Frank.

Darl behind bars?

[scronline]

Ok, now the way I see it. Darl is about to have such a shadow over him that someone needs to consider criminal charges of...

Perjury (statements in court)
Liable (statements in written letters to the press)
Slander (statements said anywhere he didn't physically write)
extortion (SCO license assurance to linux users)
Fraud (starting all this to boost SCOs stock value KNOWING he was false)

I'm sure there's more that I haven't thought of, but that's 5 items right there. Honestly....it should be some jail time for this guy. He's already proven he makes his living from suing others...this is the kind of person that needs to be removed from society. I'd rather have a rapist living next door to me. Atleast I know what to expect from them and shooting them when they enter my home is self defense.

Re:Darl behind bars?

[Lost Found]

It's spelled libel, and slander and libel are civil matters, not criminal ones.

But I would like to see him tried for fraud.

Just because you have no case

[WillAffleckUW]

doesn't mean you can't start a war of destruction against an innocent party.

Especially if you have lots of lawyers and elitists who care nothing for truth and honor.

Re:Just because you have no case

[leifbk]

doesn't mean you can't start a war of destruction against an innocent party.

This is the dark side of the US legal system that people from more civilised parts of the world don't understand how you can live with. Here in Europe, the greediness and brutality of uncurbed capitalism has been quite efficiently circumscribed for the main part of last century, while you happily let the robber barons screw you (and the rest of the world) in the name of Liberty. Why is that?

check the headline

[way2trivial]

http://www.angelfire.com/d20/miamiharold/0111.html

Enjoy.....

Re:Shareholder disclosure?

[theendlessnow]

Wouldn't Darl McBride have been under the obligation to reveal this information to his shareholders?

Is it legal that he didn't?

Good point. Easily rectified though. You email 3 of their investors, and I'll see if I can notify the other 3 directly. I wouldn't want to be Darl around the dinner table tonight!

Linux is CLEAN! How about Windows.

[team99parody]

I forwarded this to our corporate risk group that Linux's source has been audited and proven clean.

I encouraged them to try to get a similar audit of Windows from one of Microsoft's competitors before we include Windows in or bundle Windows with any of our future products.

Re:So we like consultants now?

[Covener]

their first cause of action was "Linux is full of UNIX, which belongs to us"

(Regardless of the validity of their claims) Their allegation is that developers who had access to the confidential unix code were tainted and had no business working on very similiar pieces of linux.

Re:Operating systems are Black Magic, Toqueville s

[EvilMagnus]

Let us Quote from the Book of Dilbert, Chapter 12, Verse 3:

And lo, the PHB did say: "Anything I do not understand is simple."

Amen.

In this case, the 'simple' bit is a simple idea - only teams of programmers can make a kernel. It doesn't matter that it's incorrect, just that it's what the PHB believes. It is their dogma. All evidence presented to them is filtered through this belief, or just plain ignored.

Here endeth the lesson.

Re:Sounds like religion or "Scientific Creationism

[vandoravp]

There isn't any evidence refuting Intelligent Design, but that is the biggest problem with it. It is not a theory, no matter how much they claim it is, because it is untestable. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and not (yet) disproven. Since there is no way Intelligent Design can be tested, it is not a theory. That is why it does not belong in the science classroom (especially since it has religious origins).

Media vs. Reality

[salesgeek]

SCO bought the controversy mongering press position on linux: skeptical that it was real, and challenging it's performance and legitimacy at every bend. The press hype things things because it generates sales (ad impressions, magazines, etc...). I think, that SCO and McBride got caught up in hype, much like many people got caught up in polls promising a Kerry win inthe last US election. As much as everyone wanted everything to be true, and the news was reporting it, making it seem more true, but at the end, just as the real experts said, the hype and the truth turned out to be two different things.

I think this happened to SCO on a grand scale - and they fed upon the media of the time and the desire for ANYTHING to stop Linux coming from MS and it's closest allies. They even got money from them. They got fame from the reporters like O'Gara. Their stock would go up when they reported more.

Fortunately, just because a newspaper prints it, it does not always mean it's true.

Too Little Too Late.

[team99parody]

Why do you think people like Darl McBride feel that they can get away with shit like this?

Darl & his MSFT frineds DID get away with it.

My CEO's already convinced that Linux is dirty thanks to lots of Enderle reports that our microsoft rep among others seem to have refered him to.

My bet is that Darl's backers are already praising him and preparing a job for him in much the same way that Rick Belluzzo got rewarded for defeating SGI and HP.

Re:Too Little Too Late.

[inode_buddha]

Yeah. Belluzo is *very* successful. Just not in a way that the technologies he manipulated can appreciate. And yes, I feel badly for you if you have a boss that reads Enderle and believes him.

Re:You Linux people just wait....

[schon]

I know you're just trolling, but...

Truth will have no matter when the sued companies cave or go bust.

Yeah, sure. IBM is gonna go bust. Right.

Copy of the actual email.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the text of the email, courtesy of Groklaw.

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.

From: Reg Broughton
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 10:05 PM
To: Darl McBride
Subject: Fwd: Re: Patents and IP Investigation

DARL

we can probably track down Bob Swartz if you want to dig further. Based on our last conversation, this summary of the code investigation probably closes that discussion.

This of course does not invalidate any of your statements on Caldera owning the central IP, and being the core provider of key technology and IP over the years into the UNIX and Linux communities.

REG

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:26:51 -0700
From: Michael Davidson
Organization: Caldera International
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
To: Reg Broughton
Subject: Re: Patents and IP Investigation

The actual investigation itself was done by an outside consultant (Bob Swartz) hired by SCO. I worked with him and reviewed his findings.

My recollection is that Bob produced an initial proposal for the project which outlined the methodology to be used, and he *may* have also provided a final report, but I don't have copies of either.

The project was a result of SCO's executive management refusing to believe that it was possible for Linux and much of the GNU software to have come into existance without *someone* *somewhere* having copied pieces of proprietary UNIX source code to which SCO owned the copyright. The hope was that we would find a "smoking gun" somwhere in code that was being used by Red Hat and/or the other Linux companies that would give us some leverage. (There was, at one stage, the idea that we would sell licenses to corporate customers who were using Linux as a kind of "insurance policy" in case it turned out that they were using code which infringed our copyright).

Note that the scope of the project was limited to looking for evidence of copyright infringement (we didn't consider patents because SCO didn't own the rights to any patents, and more general IP issues were just too vague - besides SCO was *sure* that it was going to find evidence of copyright violations which are comparatively straightforward to prove once you have found them)

An outside consultant was brought in bacause I had alrady voiced the opinion (based on very detailed knowledge of our own source code and a reasonably broad exposure to Linux and other open source projects) that it was a waste of time and that we were not going to find anything.

Bob worked on the project for (I think) 4 to 6 months during which time he looked at the Linux kernel, and a large number of libraries and utilities and compared them with several different vesrions of AT&T UNIX source code. (Most of this work was automated using tools which were designed to to fuzzy matching and ignore trivial differences in formatting and spelling)

At the end, we had found absolutely *nothing*. ie no evidence of any copyright infringement whatsoever.

There is, indeed, a lot of code that is common between UNIX and Linux (all of the X Windows system, for example) but invariably it turned out that the common code was something that both we (SCO) and the Linux community had obtained (legitimately) from some third party.

md

Re:Linux is CLEAN! How about Windows.

[SirSlud]

Word up. How can anybody prove that?

Still, I do think Windows is probably fairly clean.

I believe the BSD license is the way. If you talk about market forces, I think in general those that produce sweet-ass code under BSD licenses will be employed anyway. If you demand that the user open their own source, you're essentially asking, "If you use our code, and close it up, We'll squash you in court?" Good idea, but how do you prove it? You've already ensured that violaters are fairly difficult to find. The answer might be easy for us developers, but its way to complicated for the courts. You wanna push open source? Eat em from the inside, where they can use your code on their terms, but you can close off the 'innovation' valve at any point. Then you just point out that everybody knows how to build a fucking motor; we all just build motors with different purposes and strengths. The concept itself shouldn't be limited to one company; what we're trying to reward in a market is being able to deliver the solution in a way that people like. Competition *stems* from others being on relatively equal ground.

McBride is free and clear

[typical]

No, he really isn't.

Ebbers (not Edwards) is one of a very rare elite -- wealthy white-collar criminals who are getting the book thrown at them. There are very few prosecutions in this arena. It's expensive, you are facing hordes of lawyers, and people wonder why you aren't hauling off murderers.

Ebbers is getting screwed specifically because he was involved in one of a handlful of financial cases that were so egregious that they caught the attention of the popular media, and hence the mind of the public. If you are a politician, and you represent a public outraged over some criminal, you do what you can to have the book thrown at that criminal.

Darl did not piss off anyone other than the statistically insignificant (if vastly disproportionate in influence in the tech world) members of the open source community. My mother has no idea that Darl exists, and there isn't really any way to pack his crimes into a one-sentence damning sound byte that appeals to the public(Ebbers had to deal with pictures of blue collar workers and the sentence "they lost their retirement money"). Nothing scares the shit out of a voting baby boomer like the concept of someone losing their retirement money.

Darl, IIRC, came off of the whole thing rather well, with no liability and plenty of money. And SCO was in the shitter already, so his rep is more of just a CEO willing to try some long shots when not much remains than the guy who killed SCO. He *did* manage the media rather poorly, getting personally involved instead of having a more competent spokesman involved, but that's really the only black mark against him.

Operating systems are Black Magic, Torquemada says

[Bowling Moses]

Is what I first thought you wrote. It's really easy to picture Torquemada as an SCO lawyer. I see him shouting "Confess! Linux is of the Devil!" and threatening Linux users with litigation and burning at the stake if they don't pay SCO their licensing fee.

There is no parole in federal prison

[gad_zuki!]

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.

BSD = legal security

[softweyr]

What other system has been vetted so carefully and scrutinized by so many hostile lawyers and experts?

BSD. Duh.

Re:Sue SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

i wanted to clear something up. just because SCO hired an outside firm to look for copied code, and the tests come back negative, does not qualify as "conclusive evidence" that SCO knew their lawsuit was bogus. ethics aside, it is completely legal for SCO to agree or disagree with some firm's opinion they hired. they are completely free to get other opinions.

it would be wrong to call me an SCO fan, but let's not get so hasty. note that i haven't been following this closely, but is there some other legal issue i'm missing here?

Davidson's not a consultant..

[Anonymous Coward]

He was SCO's chief architect during the early years. If anyone knows, it's him.

Re:Operating systems are Black Magic, Toqueville s

[Spoing]

I talked at length with that guy from the Toqueville institute. ...

... Just like how some people can't possibly understand how a piston engine works, some people aren't cut out to grok OS kernels.

The problem was, you didn't listen to him. If you did, you would have heard him clearly say;

"I'm a PR agent. I've been paid to take a position and I am glad to suck up your time as that's what I am paid to do. I get bonus points by looking somewhat reasonable while you loose your composure in an attempt to convince me of something that I have no personal stake in beyond a paycheck."

I guess

[jd]

The point is less that the consultant said that there was no copyright code in Linux (which you are correct in saying the consultant couldn't possibly have known for sure) and more that SCO (a) asked the consultant for a smoking gun, (b) the consultant failed to find one, and (c) SCO claimed to have one anyway.

If SCO had been serious about investigating the Linux kernel, they would have had needed to hire a sizable team to perform the investigation. There is no evidence they ever did so - rather, they hired this guy - so it seems reasonable to suppose they didn't want to carry out an in-depth study.

This could mean they were convinced that Linux - as a whole - WAS a gigantic piracy effort, that there was little or no original code in it, which really would only require a single person to verify. It would explain the way they went about it, along with the gigantic claims they were making.

It seems more likely, however, that SCO had decided Linux was a sizable threat to their UnixWare product and one that could not be attacked by SCO through competition. (SCO doesn't have the raw talent, plain and simple, and the cost of UnixWare was higher than the support provided would justify.)

If Linux could not be beaten by competition, could not be bought out, could not be undercut, and could not be out-advertised, SCO's actions become more understandable, despicable as they are.

Re:Panel Says "Dead Wrong". Nice try at bullshit!

[blueskies]

Hey, what are you doing quoting sources? That's not playing fair. Do you see the GP using sources?

The smoking gun...

[J. Random Luser]

will probably never be found now. It is of course Bob Swartz' report.

Sad sad Caldera

[kalislashdot]

As everyone knows, SCO is really Caldera, they just took over SCOs name when they bought the rights to UNIX.

It's a bummer, my real first heavy use of Linux was with Caldera. I remember visiting threir booth at a Comdex in the late 90's

What seems weird to me is how such a small startup could buy UNIX, you think someone ike IBM would pay 10 times as much to get a hold of it and lock it away.

In the end I think McBride should be brought up on criminal charges as this was totally a stunt to juck up stock prices.

I predict that after this si all over the rights to UNIX will be bought to someone and then releae free into the world, just like those groups that get together and buy up empty land just to keep it empty. I do not know how long it will take but I will refer back to this when it does.

Not just the lawsuit

[walterbyrd]

How about:

- it appears that scox's showing of the code to select journalists, who signed an NDA, was a stunt specifically designed to decieve the public. No wonder there was an NDA.

- it appears that scox's showing the code in Las Vegas ScoForum, was not just a mistake, it appears to be another possible deception.

- apparently scox filed the law suit in bad faith, right from the begining.

- scox letters to 1500 businesses, demanding payment for the scox code in linux, appears to be an attempt at outright extortion.

- scox execs enriching themselves by selling scox in the high teens appears a blantant stock scam.

- mcbrides numerous public statements about millions of lines of code, appears to be somewhat less than truthful.

I know what threw them...

[Hosiah]

Of course Linux code copies Unix code in many places. That's lines that look like:

#include

and...

{

and...

}

as for all the other lines that *don't* match - aha! That's the obfuscated part!

Especially especially if you have msft's $$$

[walterbyrd]

behind you.

Scox would not have been able to pull off the scam without lots of help from msft and sunw.

Re:Linux is CLEAN! How about Windows.

[rm69990]

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.

Class Action: Can LINUX community sue for damages?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but if SCO knowingly charged for a product (their proprietary code) that was, in fact, a product owned by the LINUX community under the GPL, what damages are due? To whom would they be paid? This is entirely separate from the damages due to the knowingly false claim against IBM.

Lose?

[StevenMaurer]

Your comment reminds me of the Simpson's episode where the departing Mafia don says "Remember: In the End, Crime Doesn't Pay", and then gets into his fleet of limos.

Face facts, SCO was a company whose stock price was floundering. Then Darl came along, ginned up a lawsuit, and multiplied it manyfold. He also got real revenue for the company from "sales" of "licenses" to Microsoft. He's already a multi-millionaire as a result. And despite how slashdot members feel, it's extremely unlikely he'll ever see any jail time.

Big name spammers are much the same. We may all hate them, but they've done very well by themselves. What's the worst that most have them have seen from their billions of dollars of theft of service? A slap on the wrist.

Same thing for Bush and Rove. Had either been remotely honorable or honest, Bush wouldn't have won reelection. Tell me, how is is losing?

Face facts: evil tactics are often winning strategies. Especially because our collective tolerance for corruption is so high (and going higher).

Re:Linux is CLEAN! How about Windows.

[jmking1]

Still, I do think Windows is probably fairly clean.

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.

Re:Linux is CLEAN! How about Windows.

[Mr. Underbridge]

I forwarded this to our corporate risk group that Linux's source has been audited and proven clean. I encouraged them to try to get a similar audit of Windows from one of Microsoft's competitors before we include Windows in or bundle Windows with any of our future products.

Nice, that'll get you promoted.

Re:Linux is CLEAN! How about Windows.

[Belial6]

Uh, given that Microsoft has been cought Illegally copying code for inclusion in thier OS multiple times, I don't know how you can assume that they are clean now. The first biggie I remember was when they copied Stacker code into DOS 6. They didn't even bother to remove Stackers name from the code.

SHALLT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR

[the_REAL_sam]

Doesnt' anyone on the SCO legal team or board of directors, or executive staff care about the 10 commandments?

"Thou shallt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." It is one of the 10 commandments given by the Lord to the Isrealites in the desert. It means that the Lord told them not give false testimony, or render false accusations.

Now dear slashdot mod me down another 2. After 2 years and 100 posts, "Thou shallt not kill" costed me the only mod points i had.

Re:Linux is CLEAN! How about Windows.

[utlemming]

Your right. The following link is a story about how Microsoft stole the NT kernel from Digital. http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/Print.cfm?Art icleID=4494

Does anybody else find it ironic that Microsoft that stole a kernel is touting that Linux isn't clean? The best part is that VMS and NT are so simular that even some of the terminology is the same. Maybe Darl took lessons from Microsoft, except SCO is claiming to be the victem.

Re:Linux is CLEAN! How about Windows.

[belmolis]

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.