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.

Comments

Nice try, Darl, but...

[nokilli]

From cnet we have this story:

Lines from Unix's source code have been copied into the heart of Linux, sometimes exactly and sometimes in a modified form designed to disguise their origin, according to SCO Group Chief Executive Darl McBride.

...and within which Darl McBride is quoted as saying:

"We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code."

So sell your bullshit somewhere else, Darl. We're all stocked up here.
--
Why didn't you know?

Have your cake

[dysk]

From http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200310102 23050711

Question: Isn't it possible that someone was just inspired by work they'd done for other companies? Isn't that reasonable?

Darl(21:50): It's reasonable, except when the comment codes are the same, the humor lines in the comment code are the same, and the typos in the comment code are the same, then you start getting beyond... Ya know, it was kind of like, I learned this one day at school ... It becomes more of the... Those, to me, are really the DNA of the code here.

But...

[venicebeach]

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)

Re:Denial. Brilliant!

[eln]

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.

Current events, calendar.

[Anonymous Coward]

Current events:

• 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:

• SCOvIBM:
  • SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery - fully briefed, awaiting hearing date.
  • [Motion] [Memo - sealed] [Opposition - sealed] [Reply - sealed]

SCOvNovell:

• Complaint
  • [SCO's complaint] [Novell's answer - expected 14 Jul 2005]
• Novell's Motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
  • [Motion] [Memo] [Novell Declaration of Bruce Lowey] [Novell Declaration of David E. Melaugh] [Opposition] [Reply] [Novell Declaration of Kellie Carlton] [Eyewitness Reports of Hearing] [Order]

RedHatvSCO:

• Stayed. Parties are to update the court every 90 days (next batch due 28 Sept 2005).
  • [Red Hat letter - 30 Jun 2005]
  • [SCO letter - 6 Jul 2005]

SCOvAutoZone:

• Stayed. Parties are to update the court every 90 days (next batch due 17 July 2005).
  • [AutoZone letter - 10 May 2005]
  • [SCO letter - 18 Apr 2005]

Please note that I've started construction of a motio

Re:A SCO developer running Windows 98?

[ratboy666]

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

Groklaw's take on the 1999 memo.

[mcc]

Groklaw has covered this 1999 email, but it's in an update to an earlier story rather than a story by itself. I thought they had a pretty good take on it and I wanted to quote something here.

Here's what IBM apparently had to say when the 1999 email first surfaced in court:

"SCO seeks to explain away the e-mail to which I referred by reference to a 1999 memorandum. Now, Mr. Hatch says that he understands that we have this memorandum. We have it because it was given to us hours before today's hearing. We got it this morning. It should have been produced a long time ago, but IBM is supposedly a party in breach of its discovery obligations.

Your Honor, the memo was dated five years ago. It was written three years before the e-mail which I have showed to Your Honor. It is a draft. It says on its face that it is provided, quote, 'subject to the further analysis of Mr. Davidson'. That's on page 5 of the fax sent to us this morning by Mr. Hatch. On the last page of the document, page 6 of the fax, he says, 'I'm awaiting analysis from Mike Davidson on some of these issues since he has a better feel for the history of much of this company.'

"Well, Your Honor, Mr. Davidson weighed in, in the e-mail we provided to Your Honor. In that e-mail, he makes abundantly clear in the last two paragraphs what he said when he weighed in.

SCO doesn't even know how to lie properly

[UnknowingFool]

Somebody once told me that it's easier to tell the truth because you won't have to remember what you lied about. SCO might want to check which version of truth they want to use this week.

"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:

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)

Of course SCO will probably now claim that "fuzzy matching" meant comparing furry code or some inane b.s. like that.