DMR worked for AT&T on the code is now owned by SCO. So SCO does have legal ownership of that code and is allowed to control how it is released.
Caldera later released UNIX System 3 (which contains the same code) into the public domain. This happened after the release under a BSD license, thus this action trumps the first. They can't claim they didn't know what they were doing, as that is no excuse for releasing code that you did not intend.
The McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding, and capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Worse yet, the paper cup it was in was capable of easily collapsing and spilling the contents. Because of its insanely high temperature, the coffee was a real danger.
I will agree that the coffee was made way too hot (I think there was some regulation involved that was violated), so, yes, McDonalds was in the wrong. However, I still maintain that anyone who holds a hot cup of coffee, regardless of the temperature, between the legs is a dumbass.
No sir! I'm in California, and come October 7, I'm going to vote for someone who can kick some { commie | French | Al Qaeda | People who don't invest in lobbyists } ass! That means you you { fuckin' | goddamn } { foreign | wimp-ass} piece of shit!
Why you damn { redneck | Bush-lover | republican | insensitive clod }! You're so { dumb | stupid | SCO } you'd even vote for { Darl McBride | Bill Gates | CowboyNeal } if he were running! Geez, you make me { sick | puke | want to use Windows }!
I'm going to nitpick here, and I apologize for having to use your post to do it, but people, before you write your senator, know how to do it right. Do it right, and you'll sound intelligent and erudite. Do it wrong, and you'll sound like a crackpot.
So I'm going to take this post as an example and show you what I believe makes a good letter. First off, this part is right out:
The BSA, in case you didn't know, is essentially just a division of Microsoft.
Baseless allegation. Makes it sound like you have an axe to grind specifically against Microsoft. Stick to the facts.
The full Washington Post article is here:...
Very good. Back up your facts with documentation. Most likely than not this task of tracking down info will be handed to an intern, so make sure your references are very clear. Use direct sources (like this one did) and avoid google caches.
Just so you don't think open source is some kind of "hippy thing", I work for the largest private equity firm in the world that is focused exclusively on information technology...
Another good one. Cite personal experience. Better if you could name the company (you can always include a disclaimer that these views are your own and not your company). You may get lucky and work for a company that contributed to his campaign. However, lose the "hippy thing" phrase. Makes it look like you're assuming what the senator thinks already. May want to leave out "the largest" and substitute "a prominent". Being the "the largest" may be a matter of opinion.
Companies like IBM and Apple have wholeheartedly embraced open source. The only companies opposed to open source are those that currently enjoy relative monopolies in their areas. I.e., Microsoft.
Might be a good place to include some references to press releases or interviews that back this up. Makes it look like you seriously did your research.
By the way, if you don't know much about the BSA and open source, here is an article that describes the BSA's strong arm tactics used in bullying small businesses:
Excellent. You back up an otherwise harsh allegation with documented fact.
Now, I did not take the time to follow all the links, but you want to make sure they come from reliable sources. Major news and media outlets like the Washington Post or the NY Times are better than "niche" groups like Linux Journal. CNET is kind of in between. And, yes, I know perfectly well that these sources may vary for differing definitions of "reliable". We know the media puts their own spin on it. But remember that politicians rely on the media for much of their information, so you have to use that to your advantage.
Sorry to sound pedantic in all this, but many of us know we are intelligent, but we need to convince the politicians of that as well. If anyone else has any other suggestions on good letter-writing, feel free to add.
This is total bullshit, I have every right to do as I please with my own work. If the government will back me up when I put silly restrictions on my users, it had better back me up when I put reasonable ones or none at all on them.
You, sir, without realizing it, have hit the nail on the head.
This is something that organizations like the WIPO fail to understand. Because of the FUD that has been promulgated by companies like Microsoft and SCO, one would get the impression that open source is a black hole sucking in people's IP without their consent. Even the often-bashed GPL does not do this if all you are trying to do is USE the software.
I guess perhaps I'm an optimist, but I would like to think that some of the attitude of the WIPO is from lack of understanding. They are businessmen, not engineers. The best thing that open source people can do is to continue doing what they are doing now, while at the same time showing that they respect IP rights. Hell, anyone looking carefully enough at the SCO case right now can see that. Linux people are clamoring "show us the code and we'll remove anything that's infringing".
Perhaps when SCO goes down in flames, this will be a sign that the current IP laws do not need to be broadened.
That "barely coherent interview" was anything but.
And what is your opinion of the other interview linked to on the story from internetwk? Not trolling or bashing your opinion, I'm genuinely interested in how it compared to the CNET interview.
The internetwk article was a lot more hardball than the CNET piece. The interviewer even asked the one question point-blank that I've been waiting for someone to ask, which was about declaring exactly what files and line numbers are infringing and why. McBride then answers with some dumb analogy about breaking into your home and then evades the whole question by claiming he needs to read ESR's response first.
I have to agree with your statement that the first interview was not barely coherent. If there was anything that deserves that description, it was McBride's responses to the internetwk article.
However, unless you have a corporate lawyer on staff, it will likely cost you more than $700 just to get to discovery. And, that's why these businesses will pay up -- because it's cheaper to just pay the $700 extortion fee than to spend thousands of dollars just to prove that you shouldn't have to pay the fee.
How many companies do you know that have deployed Linux use it on only ONE CPU? (Note this does not count companies that happen to use Linux for a handful of mailservers or webservers; I'm talking serious enterprise use) Recall that SCO is charging $700 PER CPU. If I have deployed 1,000 machines with Linux, that's $700,000. If I'm a larger company and have it installed on 10,000 machines, now we're talking $7,000,000. Suddenly the lawyers are cheaper than the licensing fee.
Also remember that the initial cost of hiring a lawyer is generally not an issue. Only the tiniest of companies do not have an in-house lawyer to handle day-to-day legal concerns, and going after tiny companies is not in their best interest since the return in licensing fees would not be worth the effort.
Slashdot is an online machinery that is geared towards the benefit of the free software community. Throw some challenges to the free software community at slashdot and watch thousands of brilliant minds load-balanced working like a huge beowulf processing information online
1) Disconnect box from all external cords
2) Encase box in several hundred cubic meters of concrete
3) Surround concrete with meter thick lead lining
4) Bury under radioactive waste in a geologically stable region
5) Saturate the surface with nuclear land mines
6) Curse MicrSoft, becase you still get hacked!
The RIAA wishes to inform you that you are violating our copyrights. Our patented DMCAbots(tm) have seen through your thin attempt at obfuscation. You would like us to think you have fake copies of Metallic in this directory, but we know you were far more clever than this:
MetallicAlloysDentersAndManuals
We will now proceed to sue you on behalf of Madonna for amounts of money so vast, modern mathematics has no way to depict them.
When your lawn gets dandelions from upwind, do you cry out for people to be forced to get a lawn care license or not have one? Get real.
No, but in many neighborhoods in the US controlled by a covenant, you can complain to the HOA (Homeowners Association) and get them fined. In some places you can complain to the city for violating nuisance ordinances and get them fined that way.
Maybe that's an idea: you don't need a license to operate a computer, but you can damn well get fined if you fail to secure your PC and someone manages to damage someone else's PC via an attack launched from it.
Re:could you point me to the research please
on
The Introvert Advantage
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
One thing is in common, they dont like being around people, why? Well most of them had bad experiences with people in the past.
I'm not sure I quite agree with that. I think this may be a chicken-and-the-egg scenario.
Take me for example. I tend towards the introverted side, at least in that I don't care for large social engagements (even as I type this, my colleagues at work are on the department picnic, and I declined to attend because it's just not my scene).
Now, when I was growing up, I admit to being the one that was picked on and bullied a lot. But from my recollections, and what my Dad tells me, I was always on the reserved side. So it's not a cut-and-dry case with me. Did I become introverted because of being picked on, or did I get picked on because I was introverted? Tough call.
I decline to go to social engagements not because I don't like being around people, but simply because there are usually other things I would rather be doing that happen to be more inward-focused, or focused towards my wife and I (who is also introverted, and from her background, might also dispute the which-came-first argument).
The only explanation I can find for SCO's lunacy is that they are setting themselves up to lose a court case against the GPL. Isn't this what we always wanted--a "test case" to set a precedent for the GPL?
Hmmmm...
And then there's the fact that no one here can claim to have ever seen Darl McBride and Richard Stallman in the same place together...
I'm not going to waste time debating whether you saw the code in question or not, or where it came from, blah blah blah, since it doesn't matter. If SCO was serious about wanting their IP respected, here's how it might have played out:
SCO: Linus? Sorry to bother you, but we're having a contract dispute with IBM and there's some of our IP in Linux contributed by IBM.
Linus: I'm sure there's some mistake about this. Can I see the code in question?
SCO: Sure, here it is... Here's where the equivalent code is in Sys V... here's the history behind our development of the code... here's where we think IBM passed it to you.
Linus: (Assuming everything SCO gives him is on the up-and-up). Hmmm, damn, you may be right on this. Let me review this with the other kernel folks and see about working around this.
Now, had SCO done this, this would not one iota hurt their case against IBM. Hell, it would have bolstered it. SCO would have been able to claim that even Linus Torvalds could not deny the claims. And it would have shown a judge that they had practiced due dilligence in mitigating damages, which is almost a must for trade secret suits.
But this is not what they did. Instead they keep slinging FUD, attempt a license extortion scam against end users, and continue to refuse to show the code. This is largely what pisses people off. SCO is smacking down on the good with the bad. Meanwhile, at least until the countersuit was filed, their stock gets pumped up.
SCO needs to put up, or shut up. It's that simple.
No wishy-washyness. It's damn the torpedoes, and full speed ahead. Never a moment of doubt that they may be making a huge mistake. No second guessing themselves. We know what we want, and we know where we're going. And we'll be damned if ANYTHING is going to dissuade us. Full court press, lads.
Because of course, there is 80 lines of stolen code.. no wait... a couple hundred lines of code.. no, now they have discovered thousands of lines in hundreds of files. That's it. That's the ticket.
Of course, now I have an image of Darl McBride in a nice red uniform saying something like:
"Our chief area where stolen code was found was SMP, SMP and JFS.. TWO areas where code was found, SMP, JFS, and NUMA... THREE areas where code was found... er, I'll come in again..."
Lawywers don't like to take on cases that may leave them unpaid. I can't imagine that Boies lawfirm is doing this with the intention of being paid when it is over, especially considering the dubious claims of the case. From what I've seen of lawyers and major law firms, I would expect that Boies would have to be assured of being paid regularly throughout the lifetime of the case before they would accept the case.
No, not necessarily. Remember that one of the things you're allowed to sue for is court costs. If you litigate a case, or have a case litigated against you, and you win, you can include as part of the compensation and penalties the cost incurred to you in bringing/defending the court case. This was intended to balance things, making it such that only people/companies that really believed themselves to be in the right would bring a case to court.
Unfortunately, this breaks down when companies are allowed to try the case with the public and the media, which indirectly can make them money by inflating the stock price. Makes me sick to think that a company (not just SCO) can actually increase their stock price simply by announcing they're suing someone.
They will claim that since it is a work-alike, then it is a derivative work.
... and will subsequently be laughed out of court.
You cannot claim derivative work simply because product A works like product B. Think about it. If this were true, then anyone who is the very first company to get a product to the market will automatically have all exclusive rights to it and lock out all competitors, since anyone making a competing product that does the same thing will be considered derivative. This is obviously not the case, as any trip to the supermarket will tell you.
What you CAN do is claim exclusive ownership of a specific means of implementation (generally by means of a patent). While SCO is not making a patent claim, it is claiming that Linux has something that belongs to it. Now this can indeed make any work based on the alleged SCO code a derivative work, but it is not retroactive to any code that is NOT SCO's, and the work ceases to be derivative if the code is removed.
For SCO to go further, and claim that the rewritten, original code is infringing, they would have to claim patent violation, and SCO does not have the patents to do this, they have only the copyright.
Because of the way intellectual property (IP) laws work, derivative products that use the allegedly pilfered code are also subject to liability.
And what, precisely, does this have to do with the SCO lawsuit?
Are you stating that the Linux kernel is a derivative of UNIX? Bzzt! Wrong. Review your history. Linus Torvalds built the Linux kernel essentially from the ground up. He had no UNIX source code in front of him. Linux does work a lot like UNIX, and you see UNIX-isms in Linux, but this alone does not make it a derivative product, any more than my wife's Honda is a derivative of my Toyota just because the both have automatic transmission.
Now lets talk about the SCO lawsuit. Recall that SCO has finally narrowed its specific claims to RCU, NUMA, SMP, and JFS. Yes, these are big hunks of code. But if SCO is found in the right, these are the only affected pieces. They cannot simply retrofit the law to extend this backwards in time and claim derivative works on all of Linux. Most of this code made it into version 2.4, the specific version that SCO is citing in their complaint.
Now I agree that the SCO lawsuit is something that should be taken seriously, as much as I feel that SCO is serving up a nice load of steaming bullshit. But be careful in your conclusions. You're extending SCO's IP way too far, which is most likely what SCO wants people to do. Get armed with the facts so you can resist SCO FUD.
Here's a suggestion: start an audit of the kernel. If SCO won't say which code is infringing, then the auditors can certify which code is *not* infringing. It may take months, even years, to complete the task, but that's how long the SCO matter will continue anyway. In the end, an audit like this would be an insurance policy against any further attacks on Linux's integrity.
This is really a lot more work than is really necessary.
SCO has, more or less, narrowed its claims on the Linux kernel, a fact that seems to escape notice not just here on/. but elsewhere as well. It has claimed their IP is specifically in the NUMA, JFS, and SMP sections of the kernel (am I forgetting one? I thought there were four, but I may be misremembering), and have further stated that it is the 2.4 kernel that is infringing.
So if you wish to undertake an audit, the smart thing to do would be to isolate those changes made from 2.2 to 2.4, and record where all those changes came from. More likely than not, everything except the aforementioned pieces came from sources other than IBM, and most likely from kernel contributors that can be contacted and they can affirm their copyright on the code (or the copyright as it existed before turning it over to Torvalds).
This then leaves the pieces contributed by IBM and its subsidiaries/partners/acquisitions. Now you have the only files that SCO could claim infringement on. Any claims outside this area would be extremely suspect, which would be some insurance on the core kernel code.
Perhaps at that point, someone could gather these files together and post them on a website explaining this analysis and that these remaining code files are the only ones that could contain their IP, and challenge SCO to try and refute the analysis. Of course, they probably will, but it would send a message that the Linux community is taking the theat seriously.
Basically that 80+ % of Microsofts past and present products are infringing on this guys business process patent.
again, at face value Gardner should be recommending to put off major software purchases.
I don't care for defending the Gartner Group, but fair's fair. There's a big difference between the MS case and SCO. If you have an MS product, MS has recently announced that they will indemnify its customers against legal action by other parties. For the most part, Linux customers enjoy no such indemnification.
This is why, by the way, I'm a little disappointed with IBM. An announcement that they would be indemnifying its Linux customers would have been a huge show of support. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suspicious of IBM's motives. More likely than not their lawyers are hedging their bets on the oft chance that SCO wins in order to minimize damage, but it would have been great nonetheless.
Slashdot Mirror
Caldera later released UNIX System 3 (which contains the same code) into the public domain. This happened after the release under a BSD license, thus this action trumps the first. They can't claim they didn't know what they were doing, as that is no excuse for releasing code that you did not intend.
I will agree that the coffee was made way too hot (I think there was some regulation involved that was violated), so, yes, McDonalds was in the wrong. However, I still maintain that anyone who holds a hot cup of coffee, regardless of the temperature, between the legs is a dumbass.
Why you damn { redneck | Bush-lover | republican | insensitive clod }! You're so { dumb | stupid | SCO } you'd even vote for { Darl McBride | Bill Gates | CowboyNeal } if he were running! Geez, you make me { sick | puke | want to use Windows }!
I'm going to nitpick here, and I apologize for having to use your post to do it, but people, before you write your senator, know how to do it right. Do it right, and you'll sound intelligent and erudite. Do it wrong, and you'll sound like a crackpot.
So I'm going to take this post as an example and show you what I believe makes a good letter. First off, this part is right out:
The BSA, in case you didn't know, is essentially just a division of Microsoft.Baseless allegation. Makes it sound like you have an axe to grind specifically against Microsoft. Stick to the facts.
The full Washington Post article is here:Very good. Back up your facts with documentation. Most likely than not this task of tracking down info will be handed to an intern, so make sure your references are very clear. Use direct sources (like this one did) and avoid google caches.
Just so you don't think open source is some kind of "hippy thing", I work for the largest private equity firm in the world that is focused exclusively on information technologyAnother good one. Cite personal experience. Better if you could name the company (you can always include a disclaimer that these views are your own and not your company). You may get lucky and work for a company that contributed to his campaign. However, lose the "hippy thing" phrase. Makes it look like you're assuming what the senator thinks already. May want to leave out "the largest" and substitute "a prominent". Being the "the largest" may be a matter of opinion.
Companies like IBM and Apple have wholeheartedly embraced open source. The only companies opposed to open source are those that currently enjoy relative monopolies in their areas. I.e., Microsoft.Might be a good place to include some references to press releases or interviews that back this up. Makes it look like you seriously did your research.
By the way, if you don't know much about the BSA and open source, here is an article that describes the BSA's strong arm tactics used in bullying small businesses:Excellent. You back up an otherwise harsh allegation with documented fact.
Now, I did not take the time to follow all the links, but you want to make sure they come from reliable sources. Major news and media outlets like the Washington Post or the NY Times are better than "niche" groups like Linux Journal. CNET is kind of in between. And, yes, I know perfectly well that these sources may vary for differing definitions of "reliable". We know the media puts their own spin on it. But remember that politicians rely on the media for much of their information, so you have to use that to your advantage.
Sorry to sound pedantic in all this, but many of us know we are intelligent, but we need to convince the politicians of that as well. If anyone else has any other suggestions on good letter-writing, feel free to add.
You, sir, without realizing it, have hit the nail on the head.
This is something that organizations like the WIPO fail to understand. Because of the FUD that has been promulgated by companies like Microsoft and SCO, one would get the impression that open source is a black hole sucking in people's IP without their consent. Even the often-bashed GPL does not do this if all you are trying to do is USE the software.
I guess perhaps I'm an optimist, but I would like to think that some of the attitude of the WIPO is from lack of understanding. They are businessmen, not engineers. The best thing that open source people can do is to continue doing what they are doing now, while at the same time showing that they respect IP rights. Hell, anyone looking carefully enough at the SCO case right now can see that. Linux people are clamoring "show us the code and we'll remove anything that's infringing".
Perhaps when SCO goes down in flames, this will be a sign that the current IP laws do not need to be broadened.
Don't read more into this than there really is. This latest dustup can be summed up as follows:
SCO: Mommy! Mommy! Make him stoooop!!
IBM: [Waving hands in SCO's face] I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!
Meanwhile, ESR and crew are sneaking up from behind to give SCO a major wedgie.
And what is your opinion of the other interview linked to on the story from internetwk? Not trolling or bashing your opinion, I'm genuinely interested in how it compared to the CNET interview.
The internetwk article was a lot more hardball than the CNET piece. The interviewer even asked the one question point-blank that I've been waiting for someone to ask, which was about declaring exactly what files and line numbers are infringing and why. McBride then answers with some dumb analogy about breaking into your home and then evades the whole question by claiming he needs to read ESR's response first.
I have to agree with your statement that the first interview was not barely coherent. If there was anything that deserves that description, it was McBride's responses to the internetwk article.
How many companies do you know that have deployed Linux use it on only ONE CPU? (Note this does not count companies that happen to use Linux for a handful of mailservers or webservers; I'm talking serious enterprise use) Recall that SCO is charging $700 PER CPU. If I have deployed 1,000 machines with Linux, that's $700,000. If I'm a larger company and have it installed on 10,000 machines, now we're talking $7,000,000. Suddenly the lawyers are cheaper than the licensing fee.
Also remember that the initial cost of hiring a lawyer is generally not an issue. Only the tiniest of companies do not have an in-house lawyer to handle day-to-day legal concerns, and going after tiny companies is not in their best interest since the return in licensing fees would not be worth the effort.
Yeah! Imagine a beowulf cluster of slashdot ...
2) Encase box in several hundred cubic meters of concrete
3) Surround concrete with meter thick lead lining
4) Bury under radioactive waste in a geologically stable region
5) Saturate the surface with nuclear land mines
6) Curse MicrSoft, becase you still get hacked!
7) Profit?
Dear Bazman:
The RIAA wishes to inform you that you are violating our copyrights. Our patented DMCAbots(tm) have seen through your thin attempt at obfuscation. You would like us to think you have fake copies of Metallic in this directory, but we know you were far more clever than this:
MetallicAlloysDentersAndManuals
We will now proceed to sue you on behalf of Madonna for amounts of money so vast, modern mathematics has no way to depict them.
Signed, the RIAA.
No, but in many neighborhoods in the US controlled by a covenant, you can complain to the HOA (Homeowners Association) and get them fined. In some places you can complain to the city for violating nuisance ordinances and get them fined that way.
Maybe that's an idea: you don't need a license to operate a computer, but you can damn well get fined if you fail to secure your PC and someone manages to damage someone else's PC via an attack launched from it.
I'm not sure I quite agree with that. I think this may be a chicken-and-the-egg scenario.
Take me for example. I tend towards the introverted side, at least in that I don't care for large social engagements (even as I type this, my colleagues at work are on the department picnic, and I declined to attend because it's just not my scene).
Now, when I was growing up, I admit to being the one that was picked on and bullied a lot. But from my recollections, and what my Dad tells me, I was always on the reserved side. So it's not a cut-and-dry case with me. Did I become introverted because of being picked on, or did I get picked on because I was introverted? Tough call.
I decline to go to social engagements not because I don't like being around people, but simply because there are usually other things I would rather be doing that happen to be more inward-focused, or focused towards my wife and I (who is also introverted, and from her background, might also dispute the which-came-first argument).
Hmmmm ...
And then there's the fact that no one here can claim to have ever seen Darl McBride and Richard Stallman in the same place together ...
Could it be ...?
Then have SCO show the fucking code.
I'm not going to waste time debating whether you saw the code in question or not, or where it came from, blah blah blah, since it doesn't matter. If SCO was serious about wanting their IP respected, here's how it might have played out:
SCO: Linus? Sorry to bother you, but we're having a contract dispute with IBM and there's some of our IP in Linux contributed by IBM. ... Here's where the equivalent code is in Sys V ... here's the history behind our development of the code ... here's where we think IBM passed it to you.
Linus: I'm sure there's some mistake about this. Can I see the code in question?
SCO: Sure, here it is
Linus: (Assuming everything SCO gives him is on the up-and-up). Hmmm, damn, you may be right on this. Let me review this with the other kernel folks and see about working around this.
Now, had SCO done this, this would not one iota hurt their case against IBM. Hell, it would have bolstered it. SCO would have been able to claim that even Linus Torvalds could not deny the claims. And it would have shown a judge that they had practiced due dilligence in mitigating damages, which is almost a must for trade secret suits.
But this is not what they did. Instead they keep slinging FUD, attempt a license extortion scam against end users, and continue to refuse to show the code. This is largely what pisses people off. SCO is smacking down on the good with the bad. Meanwhile, at least until the countersuit was filed, their stock gets pumped up.
SCO needs to put up, or shut up. It's that simple.
Yes, much like Germany in September of 1939.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
-- Ronald Reagan
You forgot about the litigous curse he cast on Lord Voldemort.
I'd like someone to try and tell Scott McNealy that.
Of course, now I have an image of Darl McBride in a nice red uniform saying something like:
"Our chief area where stolen code was found was SMP, SMP and JFS .. TWO areas where code was found, SMP, JFS, and NUMA ... THREE areas where code was found ... er, I'll come in again ..."
(with apologies to Monty)
No, not necessarily. Remember that one of the things you're allowed to sue for is court costs. If you litigate a case, or have a case litigated against you, and you win, you can include as part of the compensation and penalties the cost incurred to you in bringing/defending the court case. This was intended to balance things, making it such that only people/companies that really believed themselves to be in the right would bring a case to court.
Unfortunately, this breaks down when companies are allowed to try the case with the public and the media, which indirectly can make them money by inflating the stock price. Makes me sick to think that a company (not just SCO) can actually increase their stock price simply by announcing they're suing someone.
... and will subsequently be laughed out of court.
You cannot claim derivative work simply because product A works like product B. Think about it. If this were true, then anyone who is the very first company to get a product to the market will automatically have all exclusive rights to it and lock out all competitors, since anyone making a competing product that does the same thing will be considered derivative. This is obviously not the case, as any trip to the supermarket will tell you.
What you CAN do is claim exclusive ownership of a specific means of implementation (generally by means of a patent). While SCO is not making a patent claim, it is claiming that Linux has something that belongs to it. Now this can indeed make any work based on the alleged SCO code a derivative work, but it is not retroactive to any code that is NOT SCO's, and the work ceases to be derivative if the code is removed.
For SCO to go further, and claim that the rewritten, original code is infringing, they would have to claim patent violation, and SCO does not have the patents to do this, they have only the copyright.
And what, precisely, does this have to do with the SCO lawsuit?
Are you stating that the Linux kernel is a derivative of UNIX? Bzzt! Wrong. Review your history. Linus Torvalds built the Linux kernel essentially from the ground up. He had no UNIX source code in front of him. Linux does work a lot like UNIX, and you see UNIX-isms in Linux, but this alone does not make it a derivative product, any more than my wife's Honda is a derivative of my Toyota just because the both have automatic transmission.
Now lets talk about the SCO lawsuit. Recall that SCO has finally narrowed its specific claims to RCU, NUMA, SMP, and JFS. Yes, these are big hunks of code. But if SCO is found in the right, these are the only affected pieces. They cannot simply retrofit the law to extend this backwards in time and claim derivative works on all of Linux. Most of this code made it into version 2.4, the specific version that SCO is citing in their complaint.
Now I agree that the SCO lawsuit is something that should be taken seriously, as much as I feel that SCO is serving up a nice load of steaming bullshit. But be careful in your conclusions. You're extending SCO's IP way too far, which is most likely what SCO wants people to do. Get armed with the facts so you can resist SCO FUD.
This is really a lot more work than is really necessary.
SCO has, more or less, narrowed its claims on the Linux kernel, a fact that seems to escape notice not just here on /. but elsewhere as well. It has claimed their IP is specifically in the NUMA, JFS, and SMP sections of the kernel (am I forgetting one? I thought there were four, but I may be misremembering), and have further stated that it is the 2.4 kernel that is infringing.
So if you wish to undertake an audit, the smart thing to do would be to isolate those changes made from 2.2 to 2.4, and record where all those changes came from. More likely than not, everything except the aforementioned pieces came from sources other than IBM, and most likely from kernel contributors that can be contacted and they can affirm their copyright on the code (or the copyright as it existed before turning it over to Torvalds).
This then leaves the pieces contributed by IBM and its subsidiaries/partners/acquisitions. Now you have the only files that SCO could claim infringement on. Any claims outside this area would be extremely suspect, which would be some insurance on the core kernel code.
Perhaps at that point, someone could gather these files together and post them on a website explaining this analysis and that these remaining code files are the only ones that could contain their IP, and challenge SCO to try and refute the analysis. Of course, they probably will, but it would send a message that the Linux community is taking the theat seriously.
I don't care for defending the Gartner Group, but fair's fair. There's a big difference between the MS case and SCO. If you have an MS product, MS has recently announced that they will indemnify its customers against legal action by other parties. For the most part, Linux customers enjoy no such indemnification.
This is why, by the way, I'm a little disappointed with IBM. An announcement that they would be indemnifying its Linux customers would have been a huge show of support. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suspicious of IBM's motives. More likely than not their lawyers are hedging their bets on the oft chance that SCO wins in order to minimize damage, but it would have been great nonetheless.