Ah! Your computer science teacher! Now THERE is someone who knows about good coding.
Besides, your story makes zero sense. The ENTIRE group missed the mascot. NO ONE in the entire class of X people caught it. If anything you are proving the reverse.
Uh no, it would be more like you wear a seatbelt because you have SOME DOUBT that you WILL NOT get in an accident. You have insurance because there is SOME DOUBT that your house will not burn down.
The fact that SGI pulled the code only adds creedence to SCO's allegations.
So screw you moderators, I am going to voice my opinion - no matter how you try to censor me.
Good idea. They could ask for $15 million or so and setup a Paypal link.
Better idea: they could setup a seperate paypal link for each employees paycheck!
Its obvious though that since the code was stolen, they need to completely change their business plan. That is obvious. There is no way that anyone else could possibly sell software now. Microsoft should give up selling software too, someone might steal the sourcecode to Wordpad.
"SGI admitted no such thing. SGI said that they looked at the code in question and saw some similarities with Sys V code as well."
Yes, ACCORDING TO SGI. I like how you believe who you want to believe. There is no "fact" that the code in question belons in the public domain. Even SGI didn't claim this. They said it MAY belong in the PD, an interesting choice of words. Sounds like spin to me since if it was in the PD most likely they would have trumpeted it in the press release.
"They have an obligation to inform others of the infringing lines of code and give opportunity for a remedy."
They are not obligated to do so at this time. Please stop repeating this.
"Legally, SCO MUST show the alleged infringing code, otherwise they have no case"
Uh, they will at the proper time and in front of the proper legal authorities. They are not obligated to release any information to the unwashed masses. There is no hearing, or trial, yet.
SCO has no such obligations, but you keep saying it. I don't know where you went to law school. The evidence will be presented when it makes sense to do so, at the proper time. They aren't going to tell everyone so that they can change the codebase and say "see, nothing here - its all OK now".
"Now SGI is ADMITTING that they put SYSV code in the Linux codebase.
No they're not. They're saying that they found code that happens to match some Sys V code in what they submitted -- less than 0.02% worth. The exact provenance of that code isn't clear, SysV may have got it from the same place SGI did. Your statement implies several levels of culpability that is just plain not in the SGI letter."
Er, that is the same thing said in a different way. They admit that they found code that matches some SYSV code in the code they submitted. No one ever mentioned anything about where THAT code may have come from before it was introduced into SYSV.
I love the slashbots, first it is "SCO sucks - there isn't ANY of their code in there." Then it is "OK, maybe some, but its only 0.02% worth - SGI said so".
Removing the code cannot limit SCO's claims as it doesn't change damages that have already occured.
"SGI. In the letter. They said that they'd searched the rest of the SysV code (they have a license, remember?) and only found a few possible instances, which they're fixing. You did read the letter, didn't you?"
Oh yeah, I trust those SGI guys. They must be telling the truth, there is no reason for them to lie!!!
They are also asking for Licensing fees from the distributors themselves. That is what I was referring to.
Anyhow the entire premise that they are obligated to find a mutually agreeable solution before litigating is completely wrong. There is no such requirement.
SGI claims that they exhaustively did an audit of the code and that there were only 200 lines that they know of. That is not verifiable. They may be lying. No one ever claimed that SGI didn't submit patches.
"On the other hand, what it does is refute SCO's claim that there are over 1 million lines of code that infringe on their IP. SGI makes it sound like, at most, 200 lines infringe, most of which has been removed and found redundant."
Yes, SGI makes it sound like that. Are they going to admit 1 million lines of code is infringing? No, of course not. They will sttempt to say "well, there MAY have been some offending code - but we took it out and its all OK now".
SCO says 1 million, SGI says 200 lines. Who do you trust? They both have something to gain and lose.
Uh no, if you REAL THE ARTICLE you would see that SGI said that the code MAY BE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. You obviously didn't read it and are one of the reasons that this site is going downhill. You were probably the mod too.
Says who? And who says that its only a few lines of infringing code? SGI claims 200, SCO claims hundreds of thousands! Who do I believe? Well I don't trust either of them to tell the truth.
I never said that SCO would get "full damages". That would be silly, since SCO hasn't asked for any damage amount yet. I am just saying that their case is strengthening. Who is to say that this is all of the code lines in question? Maybe there is more, a lot more. Making fun of SCO won't make them go away.
Sounds like SGI is spinning it: "well there was SCO owned code in there, but we didn't need it and we took it out already so, um, lets just forget the whole thing, OK"?
You must be kidding to see that this damages SCO's case! If anything it strengthens it. You cannot just say "oops we made a mistake and everything is OK now". SCO can argue that lots of companies made money off of Linux and if their IP is in there then they should get a cut. That is the key though - is the code that SGI is mentioning actually public domain or not?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah! Your computer science teacher! Now THERE is someone who knows about good coding.
Besides, your story makes zero sense. The ENTIRE group missed the mascot. NO ONE in the entire class of X people caught it. If anything you are proving the reverse.
Uh no, it would be more like you wear a seatbelt because you have SOME DOUBT that you WILL NOT get in an accident. You have insurance because there is SOME DOUBT that your house will not burn down.
The fact that SGI pulled the code only adds creedence to SCO's allegations.
So screw you moderators, I am going to voice my opinion - no matter how you try to censor me.
We aren't groveling to Darl! We are standing up to his bullsh*t!
Good idea. They could ask for $15 million or so and setup a Paypal link.
Better idea: they could setup a seperate paypal link for each employees paycheck!
Its obvious though that since the code was stolen, they need to completely change their business plan. That is obvious. There is no way that anyone else could possibly sell software now. Microsoft should give up selling software too, someone might steal the sourcecode to Wordpad.
No they are not LEGALLY REQUIRED to do so at this time.
I went to NYU law. Graduated in 1995. How about you?
You are assuming the all code in question is the same as the one that Bruce discussed. It is not.
"SGI admitted no such thing. SGI said that they looked at the code in question and saw some similarities with Sys V code as well."
Yes, ACCORDING TO SGI. I like how you believe who you want to believe. There is no "fact" that the code in question belons in the public domain. Even SGI didn't claim this. They said it MAY belong in the PD, an interesting choice of words. Sounds like spin to me since if it was in the PD most likely they would have trumpeted it in the press release.
"There may be a bit more than that in there somewhere, but it's unlikely to be a really huge numbers."
I have no idea how you people can make such statements considering you have no idea. It must be nice to participate in groupthink.
"They have an obligation to inform others of the infringing lines of code and give opportunity for a remedy." They are not obligated to do so at this time. Please stop repeating this.
"Legally, SCO MUST show the alleged infringing code, otherwise they have no case"
Uh, they will at the proper time and in front of the proper legal authorities. They are not obligated to release any information to the unwashed masses. There is no hearing, or trial, yet.
SCO has no such obligations, but you keep saying it. I don't know where you went to law school. The evidence will be presented when it makes sense to do so, at the proper time. They aren't going to tell everyone so that they can change the codebase and say "see, nothing here - its all OK now".
"Now SGI is ADMITTING that they put SYSV code in the Linux codebase.
No they're not. They're saying that they found code that happens to match some Sys V code in what they submitted -- less than 0.02% worth. The exact provenance of that code isn't clear, SysV may have got it from the same place SGI did. Your statement implies several levels of culpability that is just plain not in the SGI letter."
Er, that is the same thing said in a different way. They admit that they found code that matches some SYSV code in the code they submitted. No one ever mentioned anything about where THAT code may have come from before it was introduced into SYSV.
I love the slashbots, first it is "SCO sucks - there isn't ANY of their code in there." Then it is "OK, maybe some, but its only 0.02% worth - SGI said so".
Removing the code cannot limit SCO's claims as it doesn't change damages that have already occured.
So tell us what the "actual legal issues" are, O Enlightened One?
"SGI. In the letter. They said that they'd searched the rest of the SysV code (they have a license, remember?) and only found a few possible instances, which they're fixing. You did read the letter, didn't you?"
Oh yeah, I trust those SGI guys. They must be telling the truth, there is no reason for them to lie!!!
Duh, yes I read the article slashbot. Stupid.
They are also asking for Licensing fees from the distributors themselves. That is what I was referring to.
Anyhow the entire premise that they are obligated to find a mutually agreeable solution before litigating is completely wrong. There is no such requirement.
Thats not what we are discussing.
SGI claims that they exhaustively did an audit of the code and that there were only 200 lines that they know of. That is not verifiable. They may be lying. No one ever claimed that SGI didn't submit patches.
"On the other hand, what it does is refute SCO's claim that there are over 1 million lines of code that infringe on their IP. SGI makes it sound like, at most, 200 lines infringe, most of which has been removed and found redundant."
Yes, SGI makes it sound like that. Are they going to admit 1 million lines of code is infringing? No, of course not. They will sttempt to say "well, there MAY have been some offending code - but we took it out and its all OK now".
SCO says 1 million, SGI says 200 lines. Who do you trust? They both have something to gain and lose.
Uh no, if you REAL THE ARTICLE you would see that SGI said that the code MAY BE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. You obviously didn't read it and are one of the reasons that this site is going downhill. You were probably the mod too.
SCO hasn't litigated yet. They are asking for a license fee, which you can argue is a mutually acceptable solution.
Says who? And who says that its only a few lines of infringing code? SGI claims 200, SCO claims hundreds of thousands! Who do I believe? Well I don't trust either of them to tell the truth.
I love the way I get modded as "Troll" as soon as I make speculation that is outside of the slashdot collectives hive like worldview.
This place is getting lamer. It is turning into a bunch of "SCO sucks" and "Microsoft sucks" comments and stupid Russia "jokes".
I never said that SCO would get "full damages". That would be silly, since SCO hasn't asked for any damage amount yet. I am just saying that their case is strengthening. Who is to say that this is all of the code lines in question? Maybe there is more, a lot more. Making fun of SCO won't make them go away.
Sounds like SGI is spinning it: "well there was SCO owned code in there, but we didn't need it and we took it out already so, um, lets just forget the whole thing, OK"?
You must be kidding to see that this damages SCO's case! If anything it strengthens it. You cannot just say "oops we made a mistake and everything is OK now". SCO can argue that lots of companies made money off of Linux and if their IP is in there then they should get a cut. That is the key though - is the code that SGI is mentioning actually public domain or not?
1) The offending, potentially infringing code is being removed.
IMMATERIAL. You cannot just "take back" code and say everything is OK.
2) That code may well have been in the public domain anyway.
MAY HAVE BEEN, according to SGI. However they were concerned enough to remove the code.