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."

22 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. Oh, there's a 2.7 kernel! by Musteval · · Score: 5, Funny

    IBM just hasn't released it yet. Bastards.

    --
    Note to mods: I'm probably being sarcastic.
    1. Re:Oh, there's a 2.7 kernel! by aurb · · Score: 5, Funny

      Damn! Just finished compiling 2.6.14...

    2. Re:Oh, there's a 2.7 kernel! by nofx_3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your post has been recorded and will be used as evidence in our trial.
       
      --SCO

      --
      Visualize Whirled Peas
    3. Re:Oh, there's a 2.7 kernel! by FidelCatsro · · Score: 5, Funny

      Looks like the best evidence SCO have ever had.

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    4. Re:Oh, there's a 2.7 kernel! by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

      Meanwhile, SCO has also requested that the court subpoena all conversations between IBM executives and the tooth fairy, citing the potential for disclosure and dissemination of Unix source code through pillow-related transactions.

      --
      "He's a god; it'll take more than one shot." â" Lady Eboshi, Mononoke Hime
  2. Okay . . . by failure-man · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SCO does not, and has never had a firm grip on reality. This is news?

    1. 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. Send 'em a box of blank paper by docbrown42 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...either that, or a empty box.

    --
    Ed Wedig
    Graphic design services
    docbrown.net
    1. Re:Send 'em a box of blank paper by Splab · · Score: 5, Funny

      mmm.. Charles Bronson styled toiletpaper - rough, tough and wont take shit from nobody.

  4. SCO's retort by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    "Your Honour, we propose that there may be a Linux 2.7 kernel in... you know... that other dimension where Spock has a beard."

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:SCO's retort by Xentor · · Score: 5, Funny

      "What's the use of us staying up all night arguing about whether there is or isn't a Linux 2.7 kernel, when you walk right up and tell us it doesn't exist!? We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty! I demand that I may, OR may NOT be Darl McBride!"

      --
      "The amount of intelligence on this planet is a constant. The population is growing." -Cole's Axiom
  5. Maybe not as a big a deal as the article says? by conJunk · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Sure, it's funny. SCO is caught looking like fools. Ha ha. But maybe not such a big deal.

    Document requests in discovery are governed by Rule 34. One of the provisions of this rule is that the respondant has 30 days to answer the document request.

    IBM will say "sorry, we don't have any of the documents you've requested because they don't exist"

    Sure SCO looks bad, but i don't think this is a case of everybody "laughing so hard we won't be able to hear you if you mumble" as TFA suggests.

  6. The answer is easy by Philodoxx · · Score: 5, Funny

    The way I see it, IBM has two very easy answers to SCO's request.

    1) Hand them a blank piece of paper.

    2) Attach a bell and a whistle to a CD containing the source for the latest 2.6 kernel.

    --
    Oh, a lesson in history from Mr. I'm my own grandpa.
  7. Still damaging by Vlijmen+Fileer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To most of us, SCO has been purely laughable for a long time already.
    But as long as it can stay in the news, it will keep damaging Linux's reputation; other pepole keep hearing the general news of "Linux being under attack".
    The big question, and what we should hope for is: when will SCO's whining /ever/ stop?

  8. In other filings... by jd · · Score: 5, Funny
    SCO has also demanded the BBC turn over working blueprints of the TARDIS, that Arthur C Clarke provide a CVS snapshot of HAL 9000 and that Isaac Asimov reveal the equations used in psychohistory. SCO is also investigating secret codes in the Bible for possible hidden prophecies revealing System V code.


    I am now convinced that someone at SCO has flipped their lid and become a paranoid schizophrenic. Either that, or they are aiming at a career on the Comedy Channel once SCO sinks without trace.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  9. Re:Of course not ... by eno2001 · · Score: 5, Funny

    You couldn't be MORE wrong than ever now could you? Linux Tovalds is not a business man. He's a communist. He believes in sharing his operating system so that he can infect machines with the biggest communist virus ever written by man. And why? I have it on good authority that he plans to utilize the Linux kernel in every computer to pull off a mass DDoS attack with millions of machines in unison against the American nations of the world. If you love American and your country you will join with Microsoft and SCO now in opposing the threat of this international terrorist by buying a copy of Windows XP for every electronic device in your house connected by a wire to the internet. Yes this even means to anything plugged into the mains because it's indirectly a channel to the internet since the grounding in all electonirc equipment is connected to everything else.

    We have a plan to keep this from happening and it involves extensive litigation against Linux Torvalds and his corporation IBM. The big blue has been infected and is to be financially quarantined until further notice. Only buy stocks from true red blooded American nations like Seattle where Microsoft is and Utah where SCO is and invest in your country. All Americna nations of the world unite against this threat!!! We will not let the communists win! We will not let the spirit of sharing without earning prevail!! We must fight back against the oppressors linke teh Linux Tovalds and teh BSD!!!!!! Join me!!!

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  10. coupla thoughts by Quadraginta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IANAL, but I've seen the inside of the Courtroom, alas.

    First of all, the Court generally allows very wide latitude in discovery, certainly including such wild speculative fishing trips as this one. The principle is that the parties should have maximal access to any information that could even conceivably help their case. Not just in the interests of justice, that is, so that the parties can make the best case they can, but also in the interests of finality. You don't want the loser appealing the judgment or otherwise coming back to Court again because they can argue some sliver or other of information wasn't available, and if it had been it might've made all the difference, blah blah blah. You want people to believe the Court gave the losing party every conceivable imaginable chance to make their case -- and they just couldn't.

    IBM knows this, too, of course, and that is why they cooperate in the discovery, and why they won't settle. They want the SCO lawyers to make the very best case that can possible be made, so that after SCO loses, this issue is dead, dead, dead and no one will even think about bringing another case like it ever again, and no Court will ever entertain it. IBM does not hire stupid lawyers.

  11. 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.

    1. Re:More like... by Fallingcow · · Score: 5, Funny

      All your talk of sandboxes and proving that one DOESN'T have something is giving me flashbacks to 2002.

      Next SCO will be taking made-up pictures and satellite photos of filled-in dirt holes to the UN and saying that it's conclusive proof that IBM is evil and must be invaded.

  12. And in other news ... by mikael · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... it is reported that SCO have subpoened an individual named John Titor, in the belief that he may have a copy of the 2.7 release or later, although lawyers are unsure where to send the letter as the address does not exist yet.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    1. Re:And in other news ... by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 5, Informative
      an individual named John Titor... the address does not exist yet.

      If anyone is wondering what the hell is he talking about: John Titor.

      Funny joke, BTW.

      --
      There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
  13. 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.