Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Demands Linux 2.7 Information

Posted by Zonk on from the not-so-fast dept.

dr_d_19 writes "According to Groklaw, SCO is now demanding IBM to turn over 'all documents concerning IBM's contributions to the Linux 2.7 kernel, including development work'. Of course, there is no 2.7 kernel and no plans at all to create one."

5 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. Couldn't this be wrong? by Sj0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Last time I checked(admittedly, it's been a long time), odd numbered kernels are the kernels where major changes are made. Couldn't it be said that SCO is really asking for future plans on major additions to the kernel in asking for planned additions to 2.7, rather than simply asking for data about a piece of code which does not yet exist?

    --
    It's been a long time.
    1. Re:Couldn't this be wrong? by e6003 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Perhaps so. But (a) as others have pointed out, in legal practice one has to phrase one's requests very exactingly, not least because the other side will give you literally what you ask for and nothing more and (b) more to the point, as IBM has pointed out several times to the Court, SCO's FUD when they started this lawsuit 30 motnhs ago (yes, thirty months...) included public puffing that they had mountains of evidence. Indeed Darl is quoted at one point as saying they had all the evidence they needed and would be fine to go to trial with what they had (early to mid 2003) without needing to do discovery. Yet now they demand IBM turns over all the material they have and will ever possibly have in the future on Linux, "non-public Linux contributions" plus AIX and Dynix. I'll bet a goodly number of quatloos that this point is hammered home in IBM's reply to this.

      Of course, don't forget the deadline for closure of fact discovery is rapidly looming (27th Jan 2006 according to Groklaw's timeline of the IBM case) and since SCO doesn't have anything they need to manufacture a delay somehow. I would be very surprised if they get it though.

  2. Re:Okay . . . by qortra · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This request might not be as non-sensical as you think.

    We all know that Linus prefers the bazaar style software development methodology, but there is no guarantee that IBM doesn't have cathedral style GPL'ed development going on. They might be preparing to drop new code in the next version of the Linux kernel (there will be another one eventually).

    There are plenty of kernel drivers, filesystems, and whatnot that can be developed (or at least started) without a completely clear understanding of the upcoming kernel architecture (provided at least a few essentials are the same, such as the monolithic design).

    Nevertheless, SCO is stupid; point taken.

  3. More like... by khasim · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... IBM now has to provide extensive documentation to convince the Court that they do not have a 2.7 kernel ... while SCO simply claims that IBM is hiding the 2.7 kernel and will "prove" it once IBM finally complies with SCO's request to turn over everything done by anyone, ever, on any project under any contract.

    WAIT! Before you hit that "FUNNY" mod!

    SCO HAS demanded access to information/code that a developer (who may have existed) may have written on a computer that may not have been uploaded to a server because it may have been in a "sandbox" and THAT code may be the code necessary for SCO to "prove" its case.

    Because maybe that maybe developer may have done something that may not have been allowed under a contract that may have covered what that maybe developer may have done on a machine that might have existed, in a sandbox that might have existed, that may not have any other record.

  4. Funny, Unless IBM Started It by buckhead_buddy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Many have read the SCO demand as ignorance on their part; it repeated mentions in the text doesn't seem like a simple typo. Some have suggested that SCO simply referred to the result of an anticipated development schedule based on past development habits. But SCO has much more information produced from IBM than the public has. My first thought is that IBM probably made these 2.7 kernel references in the many emails and documents that we (the public) don't see. Perhaps SCO is referring to a remark in an IBM email or programmer note saying to "put this into kernel 2.7" or some such. I find it much more believable that SCO is trying to use IBM's words against them.

    In this light, if IBM did make any casual remarks to 2.7 in its docs then it's IBM who looks like it's hiding development, code, or plans for a future development. Whether it existed or not, the 2.7 kernel was probably referred to as an abstract, future target. If it was mentioned in internal docs, then this call for the missing 2.7 information is just SCO putting IBM's lawyers noses to the grindstone and giving them a complicated distraction to have to explain away to the court.

    True, it will amount to nothing in terms of their accusations of stolen code. The 2.7 kernel doesn't exist. But in the final weeks of discovery, it may be a more valuable way to pull IBM's lawyers' focus off other aspects of the case.