Slashdot Mirror
SCO Says Email Is Inaccurate
daria42 writes "The SCO Group has slammed as 'inaccurate' suggestions that an e-mail from one of its own engineers showed Linux did not contain copyright Unix code, and even forwarded its own historical memo to journalists in an attempt to discredit the e-mail published on Groklaw." From the article: "This memo shows that Mr. Davidson's e-mail is referring to an investigation limited to literal copying, which is not the standard for copyright violations, and which can be avoided by deliberate obfuscation, as the memo itself points out..." We reported on the email yesterday.
--
Why didn't you know?
The email itself says that the investigation looked for more than literal copying. From the email:
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)
Yes, they all lie, and the reason is because it works. Those of us who follow this case, or who take what people in these positions say with a grain of salt and do our own research are not usually fooled by such things, but the majority of people are. Most people are content to trust people in power rather than questioning them.
It's unfortunate that the idea of questioning powerful people has become taboo in our culture, as it gives those people that much more power to do whatever they please. The only way to keep power in check is for the relatively powerless to continually question it.
SCOvIBM: In the wake of the recent opinion issued by Judge Kimball, fact discovery will continue until 27 Jan 2006, and the parties must disclose with specificity all "allegedly infringing materials" by 22 Dec 2005. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the privilege log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.
SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.
RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due approximately 28 Sept 2005.
SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is expected around 17 July 2005.
Pending/Recently decided motions:
SCOvNovell:
RedHatvSCO:
SCOvAutoZone:
Please note that I've started construction of a motio
Why is that strange?
I am a Solaris/AIX/HPUX/Linux developer, and I have two (2) machines at home running Windows 98SE.
Works fine, never had the need to upgrade or change it out.
So, if you get an email from me, it will either be from one of a myriad of Unix boxes, or Windows 98.
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
"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)."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, fuzzy matching and ignoring trivial differences, etc doesn't sound like "an investigation limited to literal copying".
Of course, they said it in the press, not in court, so they won't get in legal trouble for it.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Wanna proof? Check this. The ascii sum of all characters in all Linux' source code, modulo 666 is equal to 666! Works for every version ever released!
Go back to math class. A number mod 666 can never equal 666
No, the email in question was clearly from Michael Davidson, and not from some consultant. Below are the headers, so you can see for yourself.
1 44923365
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
[1]
Again, Mr. Davidson was a SCO engineer, not a consultant.
In the Aug. 13, 2002, e-mail, engineer Michael Davidson said "At the end, we had found absolutely nothing ie (sic) no evidence of any copyright infringement whatsoever."
[2]
References:
[1] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050714
[2] http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5789132.html
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Mod: -5, Bush troll.
Additional Mod: -3 Probably Microsoft troll.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Sorry, that's incorrect. But, you do get this watch and a year's supply of turtle wax.
I am not claiming that Groklaw is impartial but they do have a lot of facts there that you can go check. You might be interested in reading Judge Kimball ruling (from February 2005) where he expressed astonishment that SCO has not yet presented one shred of evidence that IBM has done anything wrong.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Which is not to say that the memo is worth a shit anyway, since whatever the results were they were discared in later analysis, as the email demonstrates, and in any case analysis by far more qualified people (like Brian Khernigan) has come up empty as well.
Here's what IBM apparently had to say when the 1999 email first surfaced in court:
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
"This memo shows that Mr. Davidson's e-mail is referring to an investigation limited to literal copying, which is not the standard for copyright violations, and which can be avoided by deliberate obfuscation, as the memo itself points out," the company continued. SCO also pointed out its legal wrangling with IBM dealt with more recent versions of the Linux code than were mentioned in the memo.
Forgetting the fact that Darl has publicly announced many times that literal copying is in Linux, SCO's current statement is still contradicted plainly in the email:
Of course SCO will probably now claim that "fuzzy matching" meant comparing furry code or some inane b.s. like that.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
So Swartz is telling SCO management what they want to hear, and this is also what they expect everyone to take from this 1999 letter. That is that linux infringes on SCO's copyrights.
Now what SCO likely is hopeful nobody reads from the 1999 letter are the following statements from Swartz after stating his claims:
And most importantly:
So the claims Swartz makes in this "preliminary conclusion" seem rather harsh considering he doesn't know the history of the code which he finds suspect.
And then the clincher. When Mike Davidson comes back with the analysis Swartz is waiting on we get from Mike's follow up email in 2002:
So it becomes obvious from the 1999 letter and the 2002 email that while Swartz did find similar code between linux and SCO's Unix in the end when the findings were presented to the SCO Unix source code expert it was discovered that none of the similar code belonged to SCO and there were no copyright infringements in linux.
I must say, it was nice reading the actual emails instead of listening to the obfuscation of facts from the lawyers and the media.
burnin
Rabbit season!
Duck season!
I had almost forgotten that episode. Best ever...