Slashdot Mirror
The Score is IBM - 700,000 / SCO - 326
The Peanut Gallery writes "After years of litigation to discover what, exactly, SCO was suing about, IBM has finally discovered that SCO's 'mountain of code' is only 326 scattered lines. Worse, most of what is allegedly infringing are comments and simple header files (like errno.h). These probably aren't copyrightable for being unoriginal and dictated by externalities and aren't owned by SCO in any event. Above and beyond that, IBM has at least five separate licenses for these elements, including the GPL, even if SCO actually owned those lines of code. In contrast IBM is able to point out 700,000 lines of code, which they have properly registered copyrights for, which SCO is infringing upon if the Court rules that it repudiated the GPL."
Don't forget Linus had the Minix code to refer to when starting Linux. SCO claimed that this was one way Linux was an illegal derivative of Unix. However, as was pointed out by IBM and others, a simple list of #defines cannot be copyrighted.
IBM: All your code base are belong to us. You have no chance to survive make your time.
i have the following code copyrighted, get out your wallets and pay up or i will sue!
If (x){
Now that you have seen my copyrighted code, anyone who uses the above code in their programs must pay me a nickel!!!
Hold on, I just got a whisper from my patent lawyer, apparently some firm has trademarked the bracket ({) and my copyright is invalid. Carry on.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
I wonder how much sco.com will be sold for. Somebody should make it point to kernel.org, just as a lesson to the patent trolls.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312 .2/1241.html
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Mon Dec 22 2003 - 16:36:47 EST
[snip]
"errno.h/signal.h/ioctl.h (and they are apparently the 2.4.x versions, before we moved some common constants into "asm-generic/errno.h"), and while I haven't analyzed them, I know for a fact that
- the original errno.h used different error numbers than "original UNIX"
I know this because I cursed it later when it meant that doing things like binary emulation wasn't as trivial - you had to translate the error numbers.
- same goes for "signal.h": while a lot of the standard signals are well documented (ie "SIGKILL is 9"), historically we had lots of confusion (ie I think "real UNIX" has SIGBUS at 10, while Linux didn't originally have any SIGBUS at all, and later put it at 7 which was originally SIGUNUSED.
So to me it looks like
- yes, Linux obviously has the same signal names and error number names that UNIX has (so the files certainly have a lot of the same identifiers)
- but equally clearly they weren't copied from any "real UNIX"."
[snip]
Oh arse
100 lines, 12000000 lines, 10 lines, SCO wasn't flat out lying. They found something. That something might be enough to win the suit (maybe not a billion).
It would be interesting to watch SCOs stock. If it starts rising, it means investors are seeing it from their side, and seeing them as the winner here. Investors are detached emotionally, and will probably make a better call than any slashbotter.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Google
["It doesn't matter if it is only"] returned 45 results.
Google
["Even a simple one"] returns 15400
Google
["is vindication enough for me"] returns 6 results.
I accuse you sir of copyright violation! Even if those are only fragments of your text. It doesn't matter if it is only a few lines, or one, even a simple one is vindication enough for me.
It'll be interesting to watch SCOs share price now...
It's been under a dollar a share for a few days now. If it continues, it could lead to delisting. Look for SCOX if you want to track it on a ticker. However, in the past SCO did a reverse split and they could always do another one and convert 2 or 3 shares to 1 and get back over a dollar a share to avoid delisting. Then again, Wall Street has frankly been insane in supporting this stock and I wouldn't be surprised at all by Monday or even today (early trends are actually up for the stock today) for it to be worth over a dollar a share again. I'm hoping for a delisting as that would hurt SCO immensely, but I'm not holding my breath. A stock market that has believed against all rational thought for years that SCO has some value is unlikely to be smart enough to realize by now that the game is almost over and start getting out while they can.
Man...are you a shill for SCOX?
Surely you are kidding that SCOX might win. The 326 lines of codes:
#1 they dont hold Copyright on at ALL
#2 are in public domain
#3 are not even CODE!
Where as the 700,000 lines of code IBM is counter suing over ARE owned by IBM, ARE registered to them, and pretty much IBM has them by the short hairs.
As does Novell.
This is emotional to a lot of people yes. But we are also highly intelligent people who know quite a bit about this and how this came to be. While we may be emotional doesnt mean we are wrong!
Where as SCOX from day one has been wrong.
Go shill on the Yahoo board you will find no safe harbor here.
. I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
100 lines, 12000000 lines, 10 lines, SCO wasn't flat out lying. They found something. That something might be enough to win the suit (maybe not a billion).
They only win the suit if they can somehow convince the judge that none of IBM's licenses apply, including the GPL. And if they convince the judge that the GPL doesn't apply, then they are now liable for the 700,000 lines of IBM code that SCO has appropriated.
So, no, they can't win.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
I wonder how much sco.com will be sold for. Somebody should make it point to kernel.org, just as a lesson to the patent trolls.
The internet version of severed head on a pike. I like it!
Okay, the errno.h file is a list of errors.
POSIX.1, the specification, says you need to support X list of errors, and these are their names.
POSIX.1 compliance was a goal of Linux. If you RTFA carefully (or TFS) you'll note that Linus used different values for those same constants. Which, BTW, is a bone-headed move in terms of compatibility with UNIX but still within the letter of the specification. So clearly he wasn't using one as a crib sheet for the other.
This is basically like, Linus wanted to bake some cookies, so he looked at the recipe for his Mom's cookies and made a grocery list. Now his Aunt Martha has her panties in a knot because she thinks Linus stole her grocery list, because it has the same ingredients in it, because Linus' grandmother is the one who taught both his mom and his aunt how to bake chocolate chip cookies. And this is before Martha even bothers to notice that Linux is buying butterscotch chips and way too much baking soda.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Point 1.
/. posts are emotionally detached).
SCO was flat out lying. If I run a file comparison utility over several million lines of code, and I find 326 identical lines (most of which are things like #include ) and then say that IBM stole thousands of lines of code, I'm lying my @$$ off. It's similar to me saying you owe me a million dollars because you borrowed $5 for lunch one day. Or calling you a gay prostitute because your wife dragged you to see Brokeback Mountain. Or saying I have proof Jedi are real after watching the 'Star Wars Kid' video. (Do I really need to continue? How is gross exaggeration NOT flat out lying?)
Point 2.
It is interesting to watch SCO stock. My bet is that it goes down a notch, and it seems to be doing that so far today (but just barely). Investors tend to be just as stupid and emotionally attached to things as anyone else. (Succesful investors are less so, just like some of the better
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
In the case of Novell, the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.
Novell needs every penny they can get, and it wouldn't surprise me if they sell whatever rights they still have to their new bed partner, Microsoft, who is then free to go after anyone (except Novell) for allegedly copying code from both Unix and DOS/Windows to Linux.
Because this... is... SLASHDOT!
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
My favourite graph.
Since it's not possible Darl and his minions didn't knew that the lines in question were that many and of that significance, it's quite sure they exaggerated their position to create a positive image - they lied in bad faith. Any one who bought SCOX because of this could and should sue them.
Too bad the people who invested most in this circus won't really sue them because they knew full well this was only an effort to smear the reputation of Linux and other free software. The fact they won't sue is enough evidence of a conspiracy.
As for Darl, I would offer him a deal to walk free if he could produce enough evidence for the government to go after Microsoft's top execs. There is little gain in making him pay, but having enough evidence to do a couple arrests the top ranks at MS would be well worth it.
We must only be careful not to hit him from too many directions, but hit him very hard from a few. Unless he has a hope of walking free, he won't lead us to his bosses. It must be possible to offer him a deal.
Things like these should never be repeated. The people behind this must be stopped.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Let's talk about investor rationality and that "3% correction" you speak of.
What prompted that correction? Was it a well-reasoned analysis of market exposure, followed by an orderly transfer of assets from the stock market to another form of investment?
No. The stampede in Shanghai was caused by "a rumor about capital gains tax." Apparently, an unfounded rumor.
The dive in the Chinese market prompted a corresponding selloff in the U.S., the large volume of which prompted a technical "glitch" in the NYSE's messaging system. That glitch caused an apparent instant freefall in the DJIA (apparently, backlogged trade messages from over an hour's worth of trading processed suddenly in 3 minutes)--which prompted panic selling.
So, no, I see very little to commend the cool nerves and clear thinking of the investing community.
The markets are fueled, first and foremost, on the tension between greed and fear. Never forget that.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.