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.
Well of course they would say that. I mean, given their history, is there any other choice they would have for how to respond to this.
Corporate America feels like a childish game of "You go home.... no you go home..... No you go home.... No"
--
Why didn't you know?
No Copyright violations for you to see here. Please move along.
Everything out of SCO has been inaccurate up to this point...
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Well of course they're going to say that. Did anyone expect them to say "Ah, yea you got us. We were bullshitting this whole time."?
Anybody else getting the feeling that these guys are just trying to stay out of jail now?
how the fcsk can it be than a 1999 investigation's initial findings, the Swartz investigation, show up "possible problems" and then in 2002, with Reg and Co examining the output of the 1999 investigation in 2002 and deeming that all the "problems" found in 1999 were actually NOT problems...such as legal use of BSD code, etc...
but the initial 1999 look trumps the more thorough 200*BANG*
my mind just exploded.
i hate this case.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Here is an example of code that was STOLEN directly from the Unix code...
int var1;
And here's one they blatantly obfuscated:
Original:
int var1;
var1 = 0;
Obfuscated:
int var_1 = 0;
HOW DARE THEY!
It depends on what your definition of "is" is.
Facebook is the new AOL
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)
I smell a shareholder lawsuit, an SEC investigation, and hopefully, a Sarbanes-Oxley smackdown of such grand proportions as to make Bernie Ebbers look like a slap on the wrist.
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
However, SCO said in a statement this afternoon, "it would simply be inaccurate - and misleading -- to use Mr Davidson's e-mail to suggest that SCO's internal investigation revealed no problems."
Problem number 1: Linux doesn't contain any of SCO's intellectual property.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Does anyone know who Mr. Davidson is? Has anyone tried contacting him re: this email?
I still find it very interesting that the SCO developer in question sent the email from a computer running Windows 98.
It contains the email header "X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I)".
Now, it would make sense for secretaries and perhaps other execs to be using Windows 98, but not one of their UNIX and Linux developers. Even if he wasn't using UnixWare or OpenServer as his workstation OS, he should very well have been using OpenLinux.
And remember, the email was sent in 2002. This is well after the release of Windows 2000. Even the use of Windows 2000 or Windows NT would be somewhat understandable. But Windows 98? That strikes me as very unsual.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Yes, SCO has found cases where their copyrighted code was stolen and then cleverly obfuscated by completely changing the variable names, comments, data structures and algorithms! But clearly it must have been stolen since it performs a similar function.
I think the point now is that no one really views the case as any more than a sick joke. It probably had a venemous effect early on, but the fact is that SCO has kept changing the case, and that no concrete evidence for the claim has ever been provided. Outside of certain circles, SCO's crap doesn't even make into the legal and business sections of major media players any more. SCO long ago lost the PR battle, nobody believes them, and even less care about it. Decisions on going to Linux aren't being based on whether SCO IP might be lurking in the source, but on factors of affordability, cost of ownership, ease of administration, etc.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Haven't I seen this before?
"Your honor, I object!"
"And why is that, Mr. Reede?"
"Because it's devastating to my case!"
"Overruled."
"Good call!"
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
I'm not a GNU fanboy, but the GPL works wonderfully.
You see, SCO shipped Linux for years. They did so, knowingly, under the GPL. The GPL was their license.
They claimed that they stopped shipping Linux as soon as they could when they realized that IBM was "dumping UNIX code into Linux". That's hogwash, but that's not my point.
The point is that now, when they claim there were pre-IBM copyright violations, they are caught by the GPL. They shipped all that code included in Linux and other supporting programs under the GPL.
If they believed there was SCO code hidden in Linux, shipping under the GPL means they approved of it.
sigs, as if you care.
Actually it reminds me more of the small, obnoxious kid at the sandbox, which sticks his fingers into his ears and yells I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! on the top of his lungs.
What a sorry bunch of wankers...
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
- http://www.sco.com/scoip/swartz_memo.pdf
Which seems to be entirely different and gives concrete information on similarities and copied code. I haven't verified the conclusions but this is what SCO is now making public to confuse people.Your "denial in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contratry" skills are needed in Utah!
this memo clearly shows that SCO executives knew that there was no litteral copying in GNU/Linux, they then went out and made statements that they new were demonstrably false, i.e. Daryl's Line by Line copying comment. It is now very clear that SCO executives should at least be charged with fraud.
Did Glenn Beck rape and kill a girl in 1990? gb1990.com
It just stinks of 1984. Tell blatant lies enough and people just believe it even though they know its not true.
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
If SCO does end up prevailing at all in this circus, then I predict that someday musical instument makers, like say for example, Stienway Pianos, will claim that because you used one of their pianos to compose a song, then that song is automatically a "derivative work" of their I.P. and therefore you must pay license royalties back to them. Ditto for public performances played on the instruments. A portion of each concert ticket sold must be paid back to them, and free public performances would be outlawed because that would be "stealing potential revenue" from them.
Someday, you will have to agree to a usage rights control contract for everything you buy.
Somebody will patent some kind of registration system to track all kinds of usages of all these products and you're be required to be a member of that before you'll even be able permitted to purchase anything at all, and you'll actually not be purchaing anything, but rather leasing the temporary usage rights for a short term.
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...
What the? Is that a Bible Verse? John (3:16), Darl (21:50).
Except for Forbes. Forbes loves to intimate that Linux is doomed as often as possible, so that they get lots of page views from angry zealots. And CNET will of course report anything.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
feels like a childish game
SCO: "NO! It's MY fingerpainting, and he took it from me! Mine, mine, mine, mine!!!"
Parent: "Honey, it's not your fingerpainting, I saw him make it the other day. It doesn't even look like yours."
SCO: (hands over ears) "La La LA LA LA, I can't hear you, La La LA LA LA!!!!"
"/etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit is a gimp plugin and must be run by the gimp in order to be used."
We're not in 5th grade anymore. CEOs don't decide to commit fraud based on what the president is doing. They decide to commit fraud because of some or all of the following reasons: they have no morals, they don't think they'll get caught, they see an easy opportunity for huge profits, their victim might not fight back. I don't think any CEO waits to see what Bush is going to do before deciding whether to start a stock scam. Although I'm no fan of Bush, it is worth pointing out that the feds are prosecuting white collar crime more aggressively now than a few years ago.
It is easy to tell which is the SCO fabrication -- the font size changes!!! It shrinks about 2 points.
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!
Tom Cruise? Are you as in desperate need of psychiatric help as him?
Jon Stewart would be Groklaw.
And Darl McBride would be played by Hayden Christiansen just so they could chop off his arms and legs at the end.
Cheers.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Actually, my mother used to do that, but not in a sandbox, fortunately.
NEWSFLASH: SCO today denied reports that they think the world is flat. In a statement issued by CEO Daryl Whats-his-face, the company suggested that they had only meant to say that there were certain parts of it that appeared to be flat. "This is fully within the parameters of linguistic theory," said Daryl. "We never meant to imply that it's ALL flat." Daryl refused to elaborate on which areas of the world he thought "looked" flat.
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
"Go forwards, not backwards. Upwards, not forwards. And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!"
If you had been following (I know, you're bored), SCO has not, to date, provided *any* evidence of code infringment in court. None. Dec 22 is the deadline for any evidence of code infringment to be shown. SCOs public statements as to the nature of the case vary hugely from what actually happens in the court room - they spin it as copyright about Linux in the media, but as a contract dispute about AIX in court. The impression that "they must have a case because it's lasted this long" is exactly one of the things they rely one - TV court drama to the contrary, judges very rarely toss cases early on. Especially technical ones like this, where even though the lack of merit may be obvious, it takes signifigant technical analysis to prove it.
For what it's worth, the judge has been seeming rather fed up with it too - when he issued his ruling on deadlines for discovery, he specifically pointed out SCOs misrepresentation in the media as compared to the total lack of evidence they've presented in court.
it was clinton's *personal life* he lied about, while bush tried to block human rights via a constitutional amendment, trumped the judiciary system blantantly, went into a war for the benefit of oil companies, relied on bad intelligence (at the least),and the list continues.
yes, that *is* worse.
My new blog
Is that really off-topic?
That comment has some relevance to the topic in hand, so by applying case law and using the BETAMAX case, that comment is not in fact off-topic because it has some relevance to the story discussed even if portion of it is not directly on-topic.
You can't handle the truth.
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
Unfortunately the "sorry bunch of wankers" is having a negative effect on Linux's reputation. Founded or not, their claims just add to the FUD that Microsoft puts out to combat Linux's spread, and it's having a significant effect.
Sue SCO for emotional distress due to constantly laughing his ass off at them.
He'd have a better chance at winning that too than SCO ever will with their case.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber" -- Plato
If people worried about every lying thieving politician and corporate officer, the world would stop dead in its tracks because nothing would ever get done.
Not to serve up a flip answer, but perhaps that's what needs to happen. For example, we need to have the selection "NONE OF THE ABOVE" for each ballot choice in any election, to have the option to force the political system to endure starvation instead of a mandatory minimum feeding.
The system of corruption generally takes steps to make the environment safe for corruption. This tends to expand corruption. And such expansion crashes the system eventually. Knowing this, we should understand and prefer to have the harsh measure of medicine over the comfortable safety of increasing numbness (until the gangrene sets in and the limb falls off).
Corrupt systems have to be fixed one way or another. Either they get fixed by eternal vigilance, or they are fixed by extinction. People have to understand that even by making no choice whatsoever, they've still made a choice, hence they've still selected or supported an outcome.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
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
Normally I like to see the underdog put up a spirited fight. Normally I like to see Davids stand up to Goliaths.
In this case, I feel almost weasley, but at the same time I know I shouldn't...
I *WANT* to see the bug get crushed!
I *WANT* to see what happens when the biggest kid in class, trying to restrain himself from smashing the loudmouth punk, finally loses it and gets medieval.
I *WANT* to see the SEC investigate the crooks for this pump-and-dump sham.
Finally, I *SOOOOO WANT* to see Darl one day have to take a job as a janitor at OSDL.
Am I wrong for this?
"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.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
- chrish
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
SCO accuses IBM lawyers of corrupting Judge: IBM: This isn't the code you're looking for. Judge: This isn't the code I'm looking for... IBM: We can go about our business. Judge: You can go about your business... IBM: McBride's got the body of a baltic hooker in his trunk...
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
Unfortunately the "sorry bunch of wankers" is having a negative effect on Linux's reputation. Founded or not, their claims just add to the FUD that Microsoft puts out to combat Linux's spread, and it's having a significant effect.
It did for the first 6 months of the case. But recent studies have shown that pretty much nobody cares about it any more; if anything, it's accelerated adoption, because the continuing lack of evidence from SCO is making Linux look more stable, not less.
The choice of NOTA is one not of notice, but legal force. When an office is up for grabs, but enough people say NOTA, then the office goes unoccupied until an election is held that also has enough people voting for a real candidate.
The NOTA option might be better called "LEAVE THIS OFFICE OR POSITION EMPTY UNTIL YOU PROVIDE BETTER CANDIDATES". Which is why I said "starvation".
Sometimes revolution (hopefully peaceful) is inevitable if a political system is to reform.
I agree, but I'd rather not shoot people when it's clear that most people will run things more honestly upon the knowledge that yes, shooting will happen, and that yes, they will be targeted when it happens. Having forebrains, why can't we Humans understand inevitability?
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]