|
|
| Funniest Story of the Day: SCO's Linux "Expert" Contradicts Linus |
 |
|
Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:29 PM EST
|
Is this not the funniest story of the entire day? The New York Times' Steve Lohr reports on Linus' reaction to SCO's claim that their list of files is code copied from UNIX: "But Mr. Torvalds is also clearly angered by SCO's accusation that much of Linux was merely copied. 'In short,' Mr. Torvalds said, 'for the files where I personally checked the history, I can definitely say that those files were trivially written by me personally, with no copying from any Unix code, ever.
'I can show, and SCO should have been able to see, that the list they show clearly shows original work, not copied.'
"Darl C. McBride, the chief executive of SCO, said he stood by the company's assertions. He said that a Linux expert who will testify in the SCO suit against I.B.M., which was filed last March, went over the code closely. 'As a social revolutionary, Linus Torvalds is a genius,' Mr. McBride said. 'But at the speed the Linux project has gone forward something gets lost along the way in terms of care with intellectual property.'" I can hardly see my computer screen because I am grinning so broadly my eyes are squinting and my cheeks hurt. Let's review their comical position. At trial, they plan to bring forward an "expert" who will testify that Linus didn't keep track of his own work. Then Linus will tell the jury what he remembers he wrote. Who's the expert in this picture, ladies and gentlemen? SCO surely is the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. They probably had to pay that "expert" too from their dwindling BayStar millions. A couple of days ago, somebody interviewed me by email, and one of the questions was whether I thought SCO would prevail. I surely wish I could answer that question this exact minute. I'd have to be careful not to drink any milk at the same time, though. In many trials, you do have two experts who each give an opposing opinion. Then the jury decides who it finds believable. But to put up an expert who knows more than Linus about Linux? It just can't be done. SCO might have convinced some Utah folks that Linus couldn't keep track of each and every contribution by others off the top of his head. But his own work? Their case depends on persuading a jury that Linus doesn't keep track of his own work? You don't have to be a genius to remember what you did yourself. Linus would seem to be indisputably the world's expert on himself. Is this not the best day ever?
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:57 PM EST |
I'm so amused. And you know what. It only took two minutes to give PJ some
money with "Click To Give" <-----------
Kind Regards
Daniel[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jtsteward on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:01 AM EST |
Who you gonna believe Linus or Darl?
---
-------------------------------------------------
Darl needs more bullets, he keeps hitting his foot but he won't go down[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:03 AM EST |
> He said that a Linux expert who will testify in the SCO suit against
> I.B.M., which was filed last March, went over the code closely.
All these older versions of Linux are publicly available aren't they? so the
entire pedigree of any file, and changes, are there to be seen by anyone,
expert or not.
An 'expert' can say whatever they like, but if the evidence doesn't match
what they're claiming, they're going to look like a ... Kevin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:03 AM EST |
sometimes you just have to sit and grin this big silly grin and people around
are asking what is up?
what are you smiling about?
you try to explain but unless they know this story they just dont Grok it
heheheheh
PJ i agree no milk but also no pepsi either
the monitor cant handle it too well
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Waterman on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:03 AM EST |
I just got finished checking one of the files SCO claims in 2.4.21 to infringe.
File name is "include/asm-i386/signal.h.
Changes from 2.2.5 to 2.4.21 kernel:
#include <linux/linkage.h>
#include <linux/time.h>
(added in 2.4.21 as compared to 2.2.5)
--------------------------------------------------------
static __inline__ void sigaddset(sigset_t *set, int _sig)
{
__asm__("btsl %1,%0" : "=m"(*set) :
"Ir"(_sig - 1) : "cc");
}
static __inline__ void sigdelset(sigset_t *set, int _sig)
{
__asm__("btrl %1,%0" : "=m"(*set) :
"Ir"(_sig - 1) : "cc");
}
static __inline__ int __const_sigismember(sigset_t *set, int _sig)
{
unsigned long sig = _sig - 1;
return 1 & (set->sig[sig / _NSIG_BPW] >> (sig % _NSIG_BPW));
}
static __inline__ int __gen_sigismember(sigset_t *set, int _sig)
{
int ret;
__asm__("btl %2,%1\n\tsbbl %0,%0"
: "=r"(ret) : "m"(*set), "Ir"(_sig-1) :
"cc");
return ret;
static __inline__ int sigfindinword(unsigned long word)
{
__asm__("bsfl %1,%0" : "=r"(word) :
"rm"(word) : "cc");
return word;
}
(static was “extern” in 2.2.5)
-----------------------------------------------------------
struct pt_regs;
extern int FASTCALL(do_signal(struct pt_regs *regs, sigset_t *oldset));
#define ptrace_signal_deliver(regs, cookie) do { } while (0)
(added in 2.4.21 over 2.2.5)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RSC on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:05 AM EST |
Do you mean they are going to put his mom an the stand? ;)
RSC
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thanatopsis on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:08 AM EST |
Would SCOX's Linux expert be from MIT or Nasa? :)
---
using namespace ianal;
accept(this->as(sound_advice)) ? abort() : continue();[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Experts - Authored by: jtsteward on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:15 AM EST
- Experts !!!??? What EXPERTS??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:39 AM EST
- Experts !!!??? What EXPERTS??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:44 AM EST
- Sort of - Authored by: Lev on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:00 AM EST
- Wonder - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 09:10 AM EST
- Wonder - Authored by: rgmoore on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 11:39 AM EST
- IANAL - Authored by: Weeble on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:32 PM EST
- IANAL - Authored by: ram on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:46 PM EST
- IANAL - Authored by: ihawk on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 03:43 PM EST
- Wonder - Authored by: rc on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 03:32 PM EST
- Darl's lying again - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 03:39 AM EST
- Experts - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 05:20 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:09 AM EST |
The whole SCO case is getting more comical each and every day. First
SCO reports their financial status and now this. I hope somebody (PJ?)
writes a book about this whole affair because it will become a model case
for business schools and law schools about what not to do in business
and legal proceedings.
Honestly, once SCO is done for good and gone, I don't know what I will
for entertainment. Thanks SCO for giving many good laughs over these
past 9 months.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shaun on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:11 AM EST |
If I thought McBride, Sontag and company were clueless before this little tidbit
proves much worse. They are just plain stupid. They can't even claim ignorance
anymore since it all is unraveling before them.
There is no infringing code, and there never was. I doubt they will win a
contract dispute with IBM since IBM clearly owns those functions and not SCO.
IBM can and will prove that the ones they added to Linux were clean room
implemented using only the technical specification notes from OS/2 and AIX
systems. Which IBM has every right to do.
Further to say that Linus doesn't even know what he wrote, not to mention that
all of them are POSIX standard implementations anyway, is sheer stupidity.
I have a feeling this will all be over in 2004 and will never make it to a jury.
This is so laughably insane I willing to wager the court will throw it out for
lack of legitimate evidence.
--Shaun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:11 AM EST |
I've got it! SCO cooked up this whole thing to get a movie of the week and a
book deal.
It was so obvious I can't believe I didn't see it sooner.
:P[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: robwmc on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:17 AM EST |
I've been known to be a bit forgetful (being a male), but anything I have
done which would amount to any credit (either from a competitor or
peer), I think I could document with enough proof that I would be
removed from the "go back to undergradaute school you stupid
punk" propaganda machine that SCO seems to be spewing from it's FUD.
Thanks Linus for the personal insight to your validation and thanks to PJ
for her perseverance in a commendable effort.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: error27 on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:17 AM EST |
If you look at the original include/errno.h there is a comment about how it was
created.
/*
* ok, as I hadn't got any other source of
information about
* possible error numbers, I was forced to use the same
numbers
* as minix.
* Hopefully these are posix or something. I
wouldn't know (and posix
* isn't telling me - they want $$$ for
their f***ing standard).
*
* We don't use the _SIGN cludge of minix,
so kernel returns must
* see to the sign by themselves.
*
* NOTE!
Remember to change strerror() if you change this file!
*/
The original minix code was quite different, so it's clear
that Linus didn't take the code.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Tracing errno.h across versions - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:10 PM EST
- Linus copied errno.h - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:54 PM EST
- Linus copied errno.h - more likely Intel ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 03:15 PM EST
- Linus copied errno.h - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 03:24 PM EST
- Linus copied errno.h - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 03:46 PM EST
- Linus copied errno.h - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 03:53 PM EST
- Sigh ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 04:06 PM EST
- Sigh ... - Authored by: cc on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 04:24 PM EST
- Sigh ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 04:56 PM EST
- Sigh ... - Authored by: cc on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 05:26 PM EST
- Sigh ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 07:35 PM EST
- Sigh ... - Authored by: cc on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 09:48 AM EST
- Sigh ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 01:17 PM EST
- Sigh ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 04:11 PM EST
- I stand corrected - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 25 2003 @ 01:02 AM EST
- Sigh ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 10:02 PM EST
- Sigh ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 01:50 AM EST
- Sigh ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 07:00 PM EST
- Sigh ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 07:52 PM EST
- Linus copied errno.h - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 06:08 PM EST
- Linus copied errno.h - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 09:24 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:26 AM EST |
It may be even better than PJ realizes
Is there any IBM contribution at all to these files?
If no, then it can't be applicable to SCO v IBM (although it is applicable to
the countersuit)
If yes, is any IBM contribution even conceivably a trade secret or confidential
information. That's a pretty high bar [impossible?], considering that what
these files are supposed to do, values of error numbers etc., are openly
published in man pages, standards, etc.
I'm therefore EXTREMELY doubtful that SCO will even be able to use these files
at all, in their arguments against IBM.
Meanwhile:
SCO is compelled to identify all material in Linux for which it claims rights.
This is important to IBM's counterclaims include alleged Lanham Act violations
By claiming rights to these files, even if they don't claim the infringement is
by IBM, these claims open them up to Lanham Act violations.
SCO's expert (if he or she exists) will therefore be in the position of having
to argue that he knows more about Linux and these particular files, than Linus
Torvalds, the author of these particular files.
If the SCO expert is not persuasive, then hello Lanham Act.
In short, they are unlikely to be able to use these files against IBM, and are
far more likely to end up having to defend these claims against IBM's
countersuit.
Thus by claiming these files, they haven't just shot themselves in the foot,
they've blown their whole darn leg off.
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
IANAL IA Quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:38 AM EST |
Now that we've all had a good laugh at SCO's claims to authorship of Linux
files that Linus remembers writing, has anyone seen the actual letter that SCO
is *also* supposedly sending to Fortune 1,000 companies alleging Linux copyright
violations? All we have seen is the letter that starts, "Dear Unix
Licensee." This only applies to existing SCO customers. SCO also claims
to have sent something similar to what sounds like the same list of companies
they previously tried to extort protection, er, um SCO Intellectual Property
licensing fees from.
---
Quietly implementing RFC 1925 wherever I go.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:58 AM EST |
While the end result of the litigous farce SCO is perpetuating on the masses is
highly likely to leave us all slapping high fives and buying many rounds for
each other in toasts, these salvos they are firing now, as funny as they will
seem then in hindsight, are doing doing real damage to Linux's reputation in
the business world which we cannot afford to just laugh off. SCO *seems* like a
bunch of idiots (and some are obviously truth-challenged) but if you keep that
opinion of them, they are going to sneak something in under your radar and
*really* hurt you (the old "acting like an idiot ploy".. :-) )..
Keep your eyes open. Keep your defenses up. Don't laugh it off. Respond
appropriately and professionally.. Which is exactly what I have mostly been
seeing here on Groklaw .. but not in some other places I'm sorry to say..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:01 AM EST |
Maybe we are all just falling into scox's trap by letting scox distract us.
Isn't this a non-issue?
1) If Linus copied the code, then IBM is off the hook. Or, at least, it doesn't
prove anything about ibm violating a contract.
2) Why didn't scox bring this revelation forward ten months ago?
3) Why did/does scox distribute code that scox knows to be illegal?
4) How does this scox grounds to sue end users? If anything, this would give
grounds to sue Linux - but nobody else.
5) Why not specifically identify infringing code so it can be removed?
Scox isn't stupid. Scox knows they are lying. Scox seem stupid because they say
absurd things. But, actually those absurd statements serve a purpose: they
distract the oss community from what scox is really up to.
Wag the dog.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:03 AM EST |
I think if the New York Times wasn't persuaded that Darl is looney, this might
do it. At worst, I should think, if Lohr was skeptical of the Linux folks, this
should at least convince him that he can't take Darl at face value, either.
It could be an important turning point in NYT's coverage, in that at least it
might give Linux an equal voice it hasn't had up to now.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:08 AM EST |
I've reread SCO's letters (both to licensees and Linux users) several times
now and I think they may be saying something different from what we have been
discussing. They are claiming that the "Application Binary
Interfaces," (i.e., the binary standards used to communicate between
application components) were copied into Linux. I don't think they are claiming
that errno.h was copied. Indeed they never say the files were literally copied,
only the ABI. However, they are saying that files like errno.h implement the
copyrighted ABI and are therefore not allowed.
I am pretty sure this is their line of argument, esp. based on their letter to
partners which goes into some detail on it. It is hard for me to see how an
argument this bizarre could be valid, but we should start work on refuting it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Can you copyight an interface? - Authored by: babazaroni on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:14 AM EST
- Can you copyight an interface? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:04 AM EST
- Holes in your theory - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:18 AM EST
- Can you copyight an interface? - Authored by: Philip Stephens on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:27 AM EST
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:51 AM EST
- No - Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 07:48 AM EST
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:41 PM EST
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:19 PM EST
- No - Authored by: cc on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:44 PM EST
- Re: No - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 03:30 PM EST
- Re: No - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 03:55 PM EST
- Re: No - Authored by: arch_dude on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 07:01 PM EST
- Two errno.h's - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 08:07 PM EST
- No -- no - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 04:35 PM EST
- The Trolls just keep coming. - Authored by: trox on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 03:04 AM EST
- Can you copyight an interface? - Authored by: sphealey on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 08:03 AM EST
- Caldera helped make/standardize Linux ABIs - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:28 AM EST
- ABIs - Authored by: cananian on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:29 AM EST
- ABIs - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:35 AM EST
- ABIs - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 03:34 AM EST
- ABIs - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:26 AM EST
- ABIs - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:36 AM EST
- ABIs - Authored by: minkwe on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 05:55 AM EST
- ABIs - Authored by: nattt on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 06:46 AM EST
- ABIs - Authored by: Weeble on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:52 PM EST
- ABIs - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 05:28 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:23 AM EST |
You can't "copy an ABI into Linux". An ABI is like a cookie cutter.
If I make some dough (write code), and use the cookie cutter to make star-formed
cookies (follow a standard), who owns the cookies? Me? Or the cookie cutter
manufacturer? Darl should hear himself talking. This is totally ridiculous. He
might be able to sue IBM for telling the world how a star looks like (release of
trade secrets), but that's all. And sending out DMCA notices ... well, don't
get me started on that one.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:23 AM EST |
Caldera wanted the same ABI on Linux as on UNIX
Check these out (vnunet 4/8/2000 also shows Caldera was aware that Monterey was
on the ropes at the time of SCO asset acquisition)
1. http://www.vnunet.com/Analysis/1108193
4/8/2000
So it would appear that Caldera plans to take the UnixWare kernel, layer Linux
services on top of it and also provide developers with a Linux API that they can
write their applications to. This will be sold to the high end of the market,
while Linux proper will continue to be targeted at the lower end.
Caldera's goal seems to be to unify the Unix on Intel market around the Linux
API. This means that any new packages developers create should be able to run on
both UnixWare and Linux, while appearing to behave, look and feel like Linux
applications.
...
Love appeared to confirm his commitment to the environment during the conference
call. "Monterey will continue, but we'll put Linux management and
compatibility in the layers above and combine our efforts with the IA64 Linux
work. We have a legal obligation to IBM with Monterey and we intend to move it
forward aggressively," he said.
"We'll provide on IA64 what we'll provide with UnixWare on the 32bit
platform. An API/ABI [application binary compatible] layer is very compelling
for partners. Customers will have the choice of whether they want to migrate to
Linux, Monterey or Unixware. The goal of combining the companies is to provide
them with choice and consistency so the layers above the kernel become the same
no matter what that kernel is," he added.
The development of a 64bit version of Linux is taking place under the auspices
of Project Trillian, an industry group which includes IBM, Red Hat, VA Linux and
Caldera in its line up of members. But the real question now is which OS will
become dominant in the development effort?
Phil Payne, an independent analyst, said: "This implies that Monterey is
being parked and merged into Trillian. It's another nail in the Monterey
coffin. IBM will retain the AIX branding, but Monterey is perceived as a
proprietary OS and the public wants Linux, which it sees as open. It's about
mind share and public perception."
2. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10972
"A MAN [Christoph Hellwig] employed by SCO Caldera was heavily involved in
Linux-ABI binary emulation modules, it has emerged."
Here is an example (September 2001) of Hellwig working on Linux ABI
compatibility with UNIX, while Hellwig was employed by Caldera, using a
caldera.de email address
http://linux-kernel.skylab.org/20010909/msg00238.html
3. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1300359,00.asp
9/25/2003 - Ransom Love:
We didn't want to spend years clearing out the old copyright issues in the face
of corporate opposition. So, instead we worked on Linux Kernel Personalities to
bring Linux application compatibility to SCO Unix (formerly UnixWare) and
OpenServer. The idea was to enable developers to write for both Unix and Linux
with a common Application Programming Interface (API) and common Application
Binary Interface (ABI). That way developers didn't have to work so hard, and
Unix users, the client base we inherited from SCO, could run Linux applications.
We were no longer thinking about mixing code; we were trying to create a common
development environment. We were trying to keep the Unix and Linux kernels
separate, while tying them to common APIs and ABIs.
4. Caldera helps in standardizing the Linux ABI
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/cio/article.php/1002311
In response to the need for Linux standards, the Free Standards Group (FSG) has
initiated two key projects - the Linux Standard Base (LSB) and
...
The FSG is an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to accelerating the
use and acceptance of open source technologies through the development and
promotion of standards. The FSG is backed by important industry leaders
including Caldera, Compaq, Debian, Dell, Hewlett-Packard (HP), Hitachi, IBM,
Intel, Oracle, Red Hat, Sun, SuSE, Turbolinux, and key members of the open
source development community.
...
LSB 1.1 defines an Application Binary Interface (ABI), which is very similar to
the POSIX.1 and POSIX.2 source specifications. The LSBs ABI defines the API for
developers to program to, and it includes runtime definitions for binary
compatibility.
Presently, an LSB-compliant Linux distribution must supply 15 specific libraries
that define the ABIs.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:25 AM EST |
Help! I need criticism. I'm punch-drunk from shopping all day, but this has
been nagging at me the whole time.
--SCOG claims entire files have been copied wholesale into Linux, and gives us
the (Linux) list.
--The offending Linux files don't precisely match any Unix files already
released to the public; the community has already starting looking and a lot of
values are different.
--Therefore, SCOG must be looking at files that are in their later Unix
offerings (Tibbits mentions "our copyrighted UNIX code base"),
probably UnixWare but possibly OpenServer.
--If the files are now identical, they must have been changed or added to
UnixWare/OpenServer since the last time ATT/USL/Novell/Caldera published a Unix
version freely (That was called 32V, right?).
--Why would SCOG add files identical to Linux files to unixWare/OpenServer?
Well, LPK was no secret, nor were Caldera's pronouncements about unifying Unix
and Linux.
--Is it possible (never mind, I know the answer to that one) Is it at all
PROBABLE that SCOG has missed the mark again and thought the Linux-like files in
their code were moved from Unix to Linux when they were actually moved from
Linux to Unix?
---
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly an aircraft...they were the first
to LAND an aircraft. (IANAL and whatever)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Scriptwriter on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:46 AM EST |
I'm sorry . . . I can't believe they did this. I mean, I believe they did
this, but I can't believe they did this. You know what I mean?
This is just so jaw-droppingly bizarre. Is "not guilty by reason of
insanity" a proper defense in a case like this? Because the whole lot of
them seem to be insane.
---
The clock is ticking, SCO. January 11th. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:06 AM EST |
While everybody is talking about the list of files, nobody is paying much
attention to their other letter to UNIX licensees (both letters are on
www.sco.com/scosource)
In this letter they have a paragraph where they define "Software
Product" to include System V, modifications and derivatives prepared by
UNIX vendors, and by licensees.
Now the common sense (default) interpretation of modification/derivative would
be it must include some element of the Software Product.
SCO don't explicitly define modification/derivative, but as they use a whole
paragraph to claim rights to any such, and explictly say, it's not just System
V, it would seem they are asserting rights not only over code containing
elements of System V, but code that is in anyway in contact with UNIX, or
perhaps even all code that comes at all from any UNIX licensee/vendor. In
other words, SCO's bizarre derivative works theory.
It seems to me, here we have another example of SCO asserting rights over other
people's code - and this one they don't even attempt to hide.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cananian on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:19 AM EST |
A slashdot comment quotes a lwn post by 'NZheretic':
http://yro.
slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=90270&cid=7791237
which points out that
the relevant header files and ABI were published as a NIST standard. SCO
will have to take up its ownership claims with the federal government if they
hope to prevail.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:21 AM EST |
Wouldn't it be interesting to know how they got that list of files?
Maybe another 31337 shell script using `find` and `grep` and written by their
rocket scientists?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skuggi on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:29 AM EST |
I was just listening to the conference call.
There is something very strange going on here I have to
say. Most of the questions asked where about the new
bullshit letters so it is obvious that none of the callers
had any interrest in the financial situation of SCO even
if that was the main reason for the conference. I am
thinking this whole thing could be some kind of controlled
plot.
This is all to weird for my tiny head.
Darl did talk about the copyright infringment of endusers
and possibility of litigation and he said that some people
in the open sourge community had compared this whole thing
to buying a book to read containing illegal copying
and he said that that was not their case because endusers
of Linux do copy 500 copies or more! Not exactly how he
said it but close. Hahahaha!
IMO
Well I believe that SCO will first have to show they do
hold the copyright for those files to whom they think are
infringing before doing anything else, these are only
bottomless treats from an emty barrel.
Not only will SCO have to show they hold the copyright,
they will also have to prove that imaginary
person(company) did illegal copying. How are they going to
do that?
Ofcourse those files do not belong to SCO in the first
place but that doesn't matter for them or does it? :-)
-Skuggi. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:32 AM EST |
the SCO Group so far has given us three sets of phonies:
(1) The MIT (or NASA) team that did a "spectral analysis" whose
results a spitting image of the "grep" command.
(2) The five IP legal experts that Chris Sontag allegedly consulted who said
that Eben Moglen doesn't know anything about US Copyrights Law - And why should
Eben know anything about US Copyrights law? All he does is teach at Columbia
Law, who hired him specifically for that expertise.
(3) The Linux expert who is going to testify against IBM that Linus did not
write what Linus said he wrote (and can document that he wrote).
It is infuriating that Darl McBride and the SCO Group gang can lie to our faces
all day long, but we will get our day in court.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: OK on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:52 AM EST |
I am afraid that Linux expert is risking to be never hired to work with Linux
again, ever. TSG should compensate him enough to make a living for the rest of
his life for such a farce.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 03:18 AM EST |
Tomorrow's Headlines:
"SCO Realizes It Was All Just A Big Misunderstanding, Apologizes"
"SCO Discovers True Meaning of Christmas, Drops Suit"
"McBride Reveals SCO Lawsuit Secretly Reality TV Series All Along"
"Microsoft to IBM: PSYCH! Heh"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 03:57 AM EST |
When the laughing is over, can't this whole fiasco be brought to a halt by
Linus or OSDL getting an injunction against SCO at this point?
I know that they've got less than a month to come up with something for IBM but
MS must be laughing even more than us as the FUD drives people into their camp.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Injunction? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 06:44 AM EST
- Injunction? - Authored by: old joe on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 05:58 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 04:16 AM EST |
So we know SCO:s claims in the letter it has sent to those big companies are
untrue (or worse). But the letter contains enough legal mumbo-jumbo and
superficially convincing-looking claims to make many of the recipients (who have
not followed SCO:s claims and the good guys' rebuttals) quite nervous, to the
point of ditching or delaying Linux use. How to reach them to tell that the SCO
story is bogus? Groklaw is doing a wonderful job, but I doubt many corporate
decisionmakers read it.
Linus does not do press releases, but I think in this case, his patron, OSDL,
should consider making one in a big way.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: toolboxnz on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 04:55 AM EST |
As I was driving home from work tonight I couldn't help
thinking that surely SCO aren't as stupid as we think they
are, and surely they must have something hidden up their
sleeves. But everytime I think this, they come out and do
something even more stupid, like announce they have a
Linux expert who can testify against Linus about code he
wrote.
Maybe they really do have some nasty ace card up their
sleeves. But as the days go by I doubt it more and more,
especially after making a claim like this. I really can't
wait to see what's going to happen at that hearing in
January, because I am truly beginning to believe they will
be ripped to pieces. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 05:28 AM EST |
1)
From
an article from back in June by Trevor Marshall from
Byte.com:
"But I thought that Microsoft had signed a license
agreement?" "No," Sontag said. Microsoft merely licensed an "applications
interface layer."
Of course, in the latest letter
from SCO that everyone has read by now, they are claiming ownership of the
"ABI Code" from the Unix codebase.
So now things are becoming clearer. Call
me crazy but it looks like Caldera/SCOG is collecting money from MS for the same
stuff that their latest letter claims they intend on collecting license fees
for. I wonder if talks went like this:
Microsoft: "So, how can we
help you fund your war on Linux?"
Caldera/SCOG: "I tell you what.
We'll charge you for the binary interface to Unix and then we'll use that to
legitimize our legal pursuits! How does that sound?"
Microsoft:
"Great! How does $10MM sound?"
Caldera/SCOG:
"Woohoo!"
Could this be true? MS only licensed the applications
interface layer, and not Unix itself? For 10 million
smackeroos???
2)
Another thing. Notice the wording of the letter (which
is, BTW, available from the SCO
website):
Any part of any Linux file that includes the
copyrighted binary interface code must be removed. Files in Linux
version 2.4.21 and other versions that incorporate the copyrighted binary
interfaces include:
[file list]
(emphasis mine) Notice they
are clearly not saying that the actual files are copied verbatim.
I think they are using the term "code" differently here. It seems they are
claiming the "interfaces", i.e. effectively the SYMBOL-to-value tables and the
functionality of the compiler macros themselves.
That's amazing because, and
of course IANAL, but I thought the functionality of applications interfaces
cannot be copyrighted! Only instances of them can be. I wish I had a reference
for this, but I can only offer that I've seen this discussed in more than one
thread. Does anyone have an example of an applications interface that
was copyrighted or copyrightable? Or is this some new thing in the DMCA?
Or am I just smoking too much crack?
In any event it's what legally permits
all manner of hardware and software emulators. (API re-implementation is what
the Wine Project is based on, e.g..)
So, please correct me if I'm mistaken,
but it appears Caldera/SCOG is claiming a copyright on an
interface...(!)
...J [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 05:52 AM EST |
oye he he he i had to go see what the berkly licence agreement was real fast to
make sure
This is NetBSD's licence so not exact but hey uses BSDi code so hey
;)
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are
met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in
binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions
and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
provided with the distribution.
3. Neither the name of the University nor the
names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
from this software without specific prior written permission.
The license is
preceded by the copyright statement itself, and is followed by some disclaimer
information, so that if someone has problems with the software the authors can't
be held liable.
The Berkeley license is a rather liberal license. All it
requires is that the author of the work be given due credit for their creation,
and that their name not be used to promote products based on their work. It
allows free distribution, as long as the terms are followed, and also allows
people to modify the work and not distribute it, if they so choose. Some
contributors also omit the third clause.
now SCO's information for
what these files are:
The code identified above was also part of a
settlement agreement between the University of California at Berkeley and
Berkeley Systems Development, Inc. (collectively “BSDI”) and UNIX Systems
Laboratories, Inc. regarding alleged violations by BSDI of USL's rights in UNIX
technology. The settlement agreement between USL and BSDI addressed conditions
upon which BSDI could continue to distribute its version of
UNIX
okay am i missing something yes IF big IF these where
verbatumly copied they would have to include this licence then no ;). Now if
they included this licence they haven't said it's build on UC or BSD
contributers software so whats the darn hassle.
Now just remeber to look at the
silly monkey and you can see why our client must be aquitted. I mean compensated
for there hard earned BSDi work. I mean Unix source code. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 05:55 AM EST |
| Just spotted this one on
LinuxWorld [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 06:07 AM EST |
License
The SCO corporation gives Mr. Linus 'Linus' Wartolds a license to use
something under a license until we say not to. This license is very expensive.
Thank you.
Darl McBribe
Santa Claus Operations
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 06:54 AM EST |
SCOX used their mind control ray to get him to step down as a kernel maintainer,
then they had him tell every one that he was taking off to work on his MBA.
unknown to the free world he had been lured into the the lare of the Evil Dr
Darl.
[evil laugh in back ground]
Dr. Darl: Today Utah, tomarrow I will control the world!
[he bumps the remote for the mind control ray and it falls to the floor and
breaks]
Dr. Darl: Oops
Other brother Darl: do we still do the Press Releases?
Alan: where am i? What's that smell?
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: amcguinn on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 07:11 AM EST |
| Since IBM is not involved, none of this is relevant to SCO vs IBM, but did I
miss something or has SCO just made a bunch of provably false statements that
fall exactly into the categories described in Red Hat's suit?
Does the fact
of this being done after RH filed their suit have any significance? Or
can RH just include them as evidence along with SCO's earlier lies? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 07:28 AM EST |
What is the differrence between the Linux abi and the Linux personality Layer in
Unixware?
I mean what are the copyright terms specifically
why? If linxu abi was copied to Linux personality layer inunixware which has
been implied as the layer that MS and SUn specifically licensed we may have a
nice way to take the wind out of scox sails by going at the heart of the masters
manipulating this..
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 07:50 AM EST |
| Ack! Don't do this! I almost choked on my breakfast!
I read this, and the
first thing I thought of (well, after coughing up some apple that went down the
wrong way and crawling back on my chair) was the exchange on capital hill
between Hilary Rosen of the RIAA and Sen Hatch over the DMCA. Rosen was telling
Hatch he was wrong about what he had been thinking when Hatch wrote the law, and
that she knew and would tell him what he had been thinking (great way to get
lawmakers on your side). Haven't been able to find it on-line.
Also got to
thinking about something I remember hearing Nasser (former Egyptian president)
say about americans -
"The genius of you Americans
is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves
which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them
-which- we are missing."
-- Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918-70), President of
Egypt
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 07:52 AM EST |
Please Blake probably is keeping him next to the M.I.T. Mathematicians.
Think About it, youre an expert on Linux and you'd like to have a job after the
trial, heck you'd like to not be a laughing stock after the trial. The expert
testimony fee on this one would have to be through the roof.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kevin lyda on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 08:05 AM EST |
ok, so someone who can get into the conference call will bring this up, yes?
the second time sco has brought up "proof" and it is credibly
refuted.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 08:11 AM EST |
Hmmm, lesee, SCO writes a contract with Novell and then ammends with IBM. SCO
sues IBM over rights in original contract. SCO threatens users over rights in
original contract. SCO now turns legal aim toward Novell over rights in
original contract.
Perhaps the original contract language SUCKS since it is so ambiguous that no
two entities can agree on what it means?
-pooky
---
IANAL, etc...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 08:26 AM EST |
Watch text on this link:
<a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-02/msg01034.html">sco
ctype.h</a>
This is from Openserver 5.0.5
Take note that this has a USL copyright.
And a BSD version is here
< a
href="ftp://ftp.uu.net/packages/bsd-sources/include/ctype.h">uu
net</a>
Looks like linux ctype has similarities with the BSD version.
I Dunno if this is signifacant... but just mention it..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Are you high? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 09:40 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: turambar386 on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 08:36 AM EST |
I wonder which of their Linux experts they are going to call, Christoph Hellwig
or Tigran Aivazian?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: roxyb on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 08:42 AM EST |
| After this, the Chewbacca Defense will never be referenced
again. Enter the new
candidate for nuttiest
defense/Offense in a lawsuit:
The SCO
Defense!!
It definetely doesn't make any sense whatsoever...
Seriously, could anyone contrive a worse handling of a
lawsuit than this?
Roland Buresund
---
--
I'm Still Standing...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Defense? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 11:46 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 08:46 AM EST |
I never noticed anyone comment on this, but isn't SCO complaining that Linux
has copied their UNIX Application Binary Interface (ABI)? Isn't that the
allocation of registers as you do function calls, interrupts, etc, and what gets
preserved during task switches? And isn't that typically defined by the
microprocessor designer? And isn't what is represented by header files an API
(application programming interface)? Etc.
They seem to be using the words interchangably. Shouldn't they have gotten
that right at least?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nivuahc on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 08:47 AM EST |
| [super-sarcasm_mode]
The 'expert' on Linux is obviousy
Darl himself. Who knows Linux better than the guy who actually
owns it, right?
And the thing I think everyone is missing is this:
Darl has already stated that SCO owns the C programming language. Any
software written in C, therefore, is a derivitive work of SCO's
intellectual property.
It's so obvious I can't believe you all
missed that!
[/super-sarcasm_mode]
---
Yeah, I
finally created an account. You might recognise me from my old nickname though:
'Anonymous'. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: prammy on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 08:52 AM EST |
What happens in the end ? Lets say SCOs case is found to be completely without
merit and is thrown out of court. What happens then ? Can IBM and RedHat get
compensation for lost business during this time ? What about Joe Private
Consultant whose linux based business may have suffered during this time ? What
about all the SCO execs who dumped their stock at the current inflated price ?
Just curious
prammy :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: thiegroe on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 08:55 AM EST |
I have a problem to understand what include files have to do with the ABI. I use
include files when I am programming, when I use the API.
I use the ABI when
I take an executable file from say Solaris, copy it to my Linux box and try to
execute it there.
It is my understanding that the SCOG mixes deliberatly
these 2 things to make it almost possible to understand what they mean, but at
the same time it realy looks good in the eyes of the investors to have a list of
64 files with there full name (including the / and not the . as seen in previous
listings) to feed the FUD.
Marc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 08:57 AM EST |
| Rembember the pregnant cow? Back when the IBM lawsuit was filed, SCO said that
the GPL didn't apply because they didn't know about the SCO code that some
dastardly fiends had slipped into Linux. Therefore, their argument went, an old
case involving the sale of a pregnant cow, when the seller didn't know it was
pregnant, showed beyond the shadow of a doubt that the GPL did not apply to this
case.
I wonder how they're going to argue that they were surprised that
Linux had binary compatibility with UNIX, as regards error numbers and ioctl
calls. SCO spent a very considerable effort in writing a Linux compatibility
mode for their version of UNIX, so it's awfully difficult to see how
someone wouldn't have stumbled onto the fact that the error numbers and
ioctl definitions were the same.
(I'm trying to keep a straight face here, but
it's difficult.)
I think that we can conclude from this that the pregnant
cow is dead, and that SCO will have to shift to its argument that the GPL
violates the Copyright Act and the US Constitution. Of course, that argument is
so strong I expect IBM to give up and cut a check for $3 billion any day
now.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 09:01 AM EST |
| darl's other brother darl!!!!!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 09:08 AM EST |
This just astounds me. I do not see how at this point McBribe can think
or expect anyone to take him or his media trial seriously. Doesn't he
realize the more he opens his mouth the less credibility he has?
This in my view goes beyond falling on your own sword. But maybe
that is McBrides intention, get everyone so riled up and filing law suits
that it will take decades before it's settled. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 09:19 AM EST |
The derivative liability is an odd part of the convertable preferred. Could
this be a put option SCO wrote on their own stock? I have looked at many
balance sheets, and this is strange. It makes me think the BayStar investment
is more of a callable loan.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 09:43 AM EST |
I can scarcely express the frustration I feel at knowing I will never get one of
Darl's "pay up or else" letters. I believe this leaves me without
any good way to join in the fun when the lawsuits start to flow in the other
direction. Deep sigh. I should have grown up to run a major corporation like
my mother wanted me to....
Meanwhile, IANAL, but I wish I were, because I want to understand what could
someone who did get one of these letters do? If a company sent money to Darl,
and his copyright claims crashes and burns, as it looks certain to do, would
they be able to sue to get it back? Would they be able to file harrasment
charges even if they didn't pay? Does this *really* count as attempted
extortion?
TFL
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kevin lyda on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 09:50 AM EST |
so, conference call in an hour, yes? can people put this issue into a concise
question?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: minkwe on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 09:55 AM EST |
Does anybody have a ttranscript or recording of the teleconference yesterday. It
seems to have disappeared from the net!
---
There are only two choices in life. You either conform the truth to your desire,
or you conform your desire to the truth. Which choice are you making?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 10:01 AM EST |
The files listed in the letter are now shown to be silly.
Basiclally Linus admitted that there were several weaknesses or even errors in
the original versions of these files that were fixed. If you copy you would
probably have copied the ctype macros right and copied the right numbers for the
signals and errors instead of having a lot of email discussions about the
problems with ABI compatability because of these different numbers.
They will probably claim that these were just a mistake (when they get
countersued for some kind of trade libel) and show something obscure only to the
court under the protective order and say their unnamed expert will prove it was
copied at trial. Actually the protective order might be a good thing since
raucous laughter is usually a violation of proper court decorum.
The Emperor has no clothes. And he should be arrested for continuing to expose
himself in public.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 10:18 AM EST |
Yesterday sure was a fun and memorable day. I was glued to Groklaw and just
wanted more and more.
I think the most important development was the Novell Copyright Hat being thrown
in the ring. This could change everything.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Beyonder on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 10:20 AM EST |
Yes, I see still not a lot of experience with "pump and dump"
schemes here. People are missing the point completely. It *IS* all about the
stock, nothing more, nothing less.
This is never expected to go to trial. And yes, SCO's statements will get more
and more outlandish (if not just downright silly) every day or week, for as long
as they can possibly push things.
Don't believe me? The stock went up over $2 recently, and every time SCO says
something (no matter how insane) the stock goes up.
This will never reach trial, that's not the issue, SCO doesn't want it ever to
see the inside of a coutroom, ever. Their intention (IMHO) is to pump the stock
as much as possible, for as long as they can get away with this insanity, and
then...
Well, then quitely close down shop one night, perhaps friday night of a long
weekend, and monday morning the offices will be cleaned out and no one will be
able to find Darl, Chris, or any of the rest of them, they'll have simply
"vanished" without a trace.
This is how all major pump and dump schemes go, I've personally worked for a
company that did exactly this (luckily I got out before the end), there are
pending lawsuits, default judgements, you name it. But no one can find the
people involved, so they've been dropped. It's been two years since they
vanished.
Now they've setup shop in another country, with yet another pump and dump
scheme.
SCO will keep at it for as long as they possibly can get away with, they'll try
every delay tactic known to man, regardless of the consequences, and will keep
pumping the media with outlandish claims, statements and press releases, sending
out more letters, whatever it takes, maybe even a lawsuit or two just to make it
look good.
I'll bet anyone here $20 this will never see trial.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Polar Weasel on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 10:30 AM EST |
Is anyone else having problems with the "Click to Give" link at
left? At 0725 Pacific Time (GMT-8) on Tuesday, 23 December, I tried to make a
donation and received the following message:
(begin included message)
Recipient Unable to Receive Payments
We are not able to continue with this transaction because
the recipient is unable to receive payments through the
Amazon Honor System at this time.
Please try again at a later time.
(end included message)
Hopefully this will clear up later today.
-Polar Weasel
P.S. To use HTML tags, must I only set "Post Mode" to "HTML
Formatted" and include the "Allowed HTML tags"? I tried
wrapping the above message with <b></b> but it didn't
become boldface.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 10:32 AM EST |
The Next Thing We Will Hear Is...
The Following Statement was NOT Authorised but was a mistake. SCO never had any
intention of implying that there was no SCO IP in the ABI modules. Blake had a
headache that day and it would be unconstitutional to hold him to his comments.
Besides Blake had not been briefed on the IP position of those files due to
other duties demanding his attention. Just because a person contributes to an
interview does not mean that his contributions have to make sense or that
permission was given to distribute them.
"No, none of the code in the Linux ABI modules contains SCO IP. This code
is under the GPL and it re-implements publicly documented interfaces. We do not
have an issue with the Linux ABI modules. The IP that we are licensing is all in
the shared libraries - these libraries are needed by many OpenServer
applications *in addition* to the Linux ABI." -- Blake Stowell,
2003-02-05
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rjamestaylor on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 10:56 AM EST |
| Thanks to Google News alert:
From SAP to Sobig and Domino,
2003's high-tech winners and losers
By Editorial Team
23 Dec 2003 |
SearchDomino.com
Winners:
Enterprise Linux -- Open source software is
hitting its stride. This year saw big investments from mainstream companies.
Novell Inc. bought desktop software company Ximian and announced it would
purchase SuSE Linux AG. And IBM invested $10 million in Novell, which should
help Novell as it becomes the world's largest Linux distributor. The final
version of Linux 2.6, the newest kernel, won't debut before year's end, but it's
already getting rave reviews.
...
Losers:
...
Darl McBride --
Penguin lovers would have you believe that the SCO Group CEO is leading a
one-company mission to destroy Linux. McBride wants to collect billions in
intellectual property damages from IBM and the open source community, a journey
that could leave the Linux kernel in shambles. Unfortunately, the
writer of this tidbit doesn't read Groklaw or the explanation of Loser Darl
McBride would read:Darl McBride -- SCO Group CEO woud have you
believe it has a chance in Redmond to destroy Linux and collect billions in
intellectual property damages from IBM and the open source community, but the
more SCO unveils its paltry evidence the more laughter it generates. Close
second goes to Mini-me McBride, Kevin, for his stunning impersonation of Jerry
Lewis in court earlier this month. ---
SCO delenda est! Salt
their fields! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 11:05 AM EST |
"Tell a big enough lie often enough and some people - often many people -
will believe it", Joseph Goebbels. I hope somebody will sue SCO over
infringing on Nazi propaganda IP.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 11:08 AM EST |
| Off topic, but I want to throw this out to those who have more time than I to
pursue this.
In the course of writing an essay regarding IBM CEO Samuel
Palmisano and his enthusiam for Linux, I came across a reference to Deutsche
Telekom, who was - at least in 2000 - a client of IBM for the Linux powered z900
eServer. The article appears here.
Aft
er a cursory search through Google, I found that Microsoft had been making
overtures to buy Deutsche Telekom's cable units as early as 1999, which I found
in an article here, and
Deutsche Bank was a major investor and broker in the proposed exchange.
I'm
not clear on Deutsche Bank's involvement in Deutsche Telekom, whether they're an
investor, parent, or whatever, but clearly Deutsche Bank was involved in events
(pumping, inflating) with the Telekom unit's stock that mirror the SCO situation
now. It appears Deutsche Bank was issuing 'buy' recommendations on the Telekom,
while the Telekom executives where proping up the stock price with little more
than FUD, given that the company was losing money. At the same time Deutsche
Bank issued their recommendation, they sold 44 million shares themselves on
behalf of unnamed client(s). See a mirror to an NY Times article I found here.
Deutsche Bank
is (or has previously been through affiliates) a client, a broker, and/or a
customer of both IBM and Microsoft?!?
Many of the articles centered around
the entire Deutsche Bank/Telekom exchange are not in English, and I haven't
verified the accuracy of the reports that I have linked to. Again, I'm just
throwing this out for anyone who has more time to put some meat on these bones,
it could be nothing, it could be huge ... but we need to investigate
further.
Good Luck! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 11:12 AM EST |
| Hmm, wonder if this was vetted by Boies et al? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 11:28 AM EST |
S'pose this guy is the third from the left in that famous photo of the MIT
mathematicians performing "specter-al" analysis.?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 11:29 AM EST |
No-go on the donation thing...not sure what is wrong. It said try back later but
I dont know if the payment went through. :(
Mike A.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 11:43 AM EST |
http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/031223/tech01_1.html
...dont know if it has already been posted. Came out at 10:22 ET today.
Mike A.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 11:44 AM EST |
| Let's remember exactly what these letters mean. This is NOT code that they are
claiming in discovery, although they may, they are not yet part of the
suit. These claims are from letters used to threaten users. And, most likely, as
a distraction tactic for their financial report.
IANAL, but since they
didn't yet present this in court as their discovery data, the true impact of
these claims have two bearings on the lawsuits that we are aware of: the IBM
counterclaims, and the RedHat suit. It impacts the counterclaims in that IBM
holds that SCO is claiming rights to Linux that SCO does not have. The RedHat
suit claims that SCO's false statements in the press and to users is affecting
RH's business.
I think that the real effect of this is not that major for
SCO's side of the IBM suit. They can put these files up as infringing if they
want, but will probably end up failing to prove it. All that means is that the
IBM law team has more to refute. A common debate tactic is to put up lots of
facts, just so that they must be disproved. If I were SCO's legal team, I would
put up every line of code that was even vaguely similar, in hopes that one of
them be ruled an infringement.
The real effect, however, is on the RedHat
suit. I believe that SCO was trying to deflect that suit because they claim that
the IBM lawsuit is just a contract dispute between SCO and IBM, to which RH is
no party to. RedHat says that these public statements hurt their business. This
lends credence to RH's claims, and I think will really help them avoid a
successful motion to dismiss.
If we look at these moves from a business and
legal stragegy, I suggest that it means the following:
1. SCO's
earning statment was not good, especially the fact that they would have made a
profit if not for the fees to lawyers. (Remember, they previously obfuscated the
meaning of their lawfirms working on contingency. They need to distract from
this.) This bid was successful based on the topics of the call, as mentioned
here. They focused on these new letters. This was a successful tactic. Most of
their investors would not be knowledgable to know that this claim is probably
unsupportable.
2. SCO has given up on getting the RH suit dismissed, so they
have abandoned that track by these letters. They are more afraid of their
investors. The RH suit will now go forward.
3. Regarding the main SCO v. IBM
suit, it's not yet part of discovery. It will be interesting to see if they
include it. Whether they do or not, IBM will have to add a request for
information about this for their countersuit. This is a good time-wasting tactic
for SCO, since IBM now has to file papers, add to their discovery requests, and
work on this new thing. SCO is trying to keep IBM hopping, and in this, they
will probably succeed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 11:58 AM EST |
Clearly the code written by Linus was not copied. What about files with no
copyright notice that were owned by UCB?
I thought that UCB put copyright notices in that were stripped off by AT&T.
If the files in Linux had been gotten directly from UCB, the copyright notices
would still be there.
Are there other free sources of the stripped files, or do we have to argue that
SCO's ownership is tainted by ATT's copying?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tuwood on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:14 PM EST |
From Investor's Business Daily:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/031223/tech01_1.html
In response to the question "Why $3 Billion?", Darl states:
"...Linux is the one that ended up taking off and growing gangbusters. If
you look at the $50 billion server market, this really was the part of the game
where SCO was supposed to be the market leader in that space. We believe that if
things had played out according to plan without the contract violations we're
talking about, it (damages) comes to that number."
Is it just me, or is it a little Conceited of SCO to just assume that if it were
not for the "supposed" contributions of Unix into Linux that SCO
would be where Linux is today?
<$.02>
I think that IBM saw SCO for what it was during project monterey, an outdated OS
that didn't have much to offer, so they dropped it.
</$.02>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DMF on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:23 PM EST |
IMO, Darl doesn't believe that the files themselves are the issue. He seems to
think that the *function* of the files is the issue. In that sense, it doesn't
matter whether Linus wrote them, or some bearded AT&T guru wrote them. They
call *his* (Darl's) APIs.
Same thing for the IBM case. SCO's rights extend to code that uses or assumes
the context of Unix in order to function. This seems perfectly consistent with
SCO's arguments to the trial judge re: discovery. "We know they're
'using' our IP, but we need to see the code to know how they're using it and
whether to make a claim under (c), trade secret, or patent."
Now, it's one thing to give Darl the benefit of the doubt, that he
mis-understood IP principles. But even so, there are real lawyers involved and
not just his brother. Surely one of these high-priced esquires has disabused
him of his misconceptions by now. (OTOH, they didn't show up in court, and I'm
trying to recall seeing anything over the signature of an external counsel
recently.)
So we're left to conclude that Darl does indeed know that his IP claims are
bogus, and he's betting that his moneyed listeners have the same misconceptions
he started with. So far he's right. Didn't someone once say that no one ever
got poor underestimating the XX of the American public?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shoden on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:30 PM EST |
There are times I think that SCO suits are sitting around a table playing
"Truth or Dare" and no one has picked "Truth" yet.
---
S.K.
MR. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, I have a smaller, obviously --[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:32 PM EST |
Have they actually named their 'Expert'.?
(would they want to be named?)
Don't want to be pushy or anything SCO, just interested in his/her 'Expert
Credentials'.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Icicle Spider on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:44 PM EST |
From the Salt Lake Tribune article SCO warns of
more Linux suits:
"SCO has got a tough legal row to hoe,"
said Matt Yarbrough, head of the cyber law group at Fish & Richardson in
Dallas. "I have never seen a situation like this, where a user is being thrown
under a bus."
Pat[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: moogy on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:50 PM EST |
Someone said wallstreet is starting to get
something right? Perhaps like this?
http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/031223/tech01_1.html
Investor's Business Daily
"To lead its case, SCO hired famed lawyer David Boies.
He led Microsoft Corp.'s defense against antitrust
charges and Al Gore's efforts in the Florida
presidential voting brouhaha."
---
Mike Tuxford - irc.fdfnet.net #Groklaw
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, then you win. --Gandhi
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: crythias on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:51 PM EST |
This site had an interesting comment:
At least the
company's keeping some of that money in the family. Among the attorneys on its
legal team: SCO CEO Darl McBride's brother, Kevin
Man, that's
sneaky. Please note, I'm quoting, not intimating anything...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:03 PM EST |
i realize that this is Groklaw and not grokfinancial, but where else can i get a
decent answer?
does anyone know why RHAT has dropped and SCOX has leveled?
has there been some new PR?
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:06 PM EST |
| Okay. It has taken me many, many hours of thinking about this to tumble to
this. Here's what I think the evidence supports for Darl's intentions and
motives.
If you read Darl's interview on Yahoo,
you'll read that he says:
At the end of the line is the end user.
And so that's where we go with our claims next. The Free Software Foundation
says it's ludicrous for SCO to be going after an end user. They say it's like a
reader going into Barnes & Noble reading a book and telling them they can't
read those words or we're going to sue. But it's actually much different than
that analogy.
First, when a user gets Linux, they inherit a license
agreement called the GPL (General Public License) that says you get this product
free of charge, so if you have a problem with it, don't come back to us, you're
on your own. The words in the GPL are "as is." It pushes all of the liability to
the end user.
The second part where their example breaks down is the fact
that the end users are part of the problem - they're making copies themselves.
What you'll see SCO coming out with in the next few weeks are examples of
copyrighted code of ours that have been put into Linux, and the copyrights have
been stripped off.
If a reader goes home with a book, reads it, reproduces
it and gives it to 500 friends, they are direct infringers. What we see
happening here is nine out of 10 boxes of Linux out in the marketplace aren't
paid for at all, even if they'd paid for a support contract. Once they get that
Linux in their shop, they're free to reproduce it and send it around to their
heart's content. They do, in fact, become copyright infringers. That's why we're
going there.
I think I've found the key, right there. Darl
believes that the "No Warrantee" clause in the GPL is somehow different from the
"No Warrantee" Clause in this Micro$oft EULA I happen to have right in front
of me. Why are they different? Hmmm. Because the software under the GPL is
free. (Darl doesn't get free as in speech vs. free as in beer
thing, but we should cut him a little slack there, clearly he is otnay
ootay ightbray, if you know what I mean.)
So the SCO Group has
not taken Linus Torvalds to court over all those header files he copied straight
out of UNIX System V. There is no need to. He's already noted suing Linus
would not get you much money. (See the Quote Database here on Groklaw.) Nope,
because Linus sent out all that software with no warrantee, well, then the end
users must be liable for violating SCO Group's putative copyright. There are
more of them, and to the extent that they are corporation, they do have money.
Lots of money.
IANAL, but I don't believe that legal theory is going to hold
up. And Darl doesn't really either, evidently. While he sues IBM over a
[trumped up] contract dispute, he publicly claims it is about copyright, and
then sends threatening letters to end users. He is trying a not too subtle bit
of indirection here. Pay up or I'll sue you just like I am suing IBM. And you
are not as big as IBM. He's not actually going to take these end users to
court, he must know he can't, he's hoping however that they won't notice that.
TFL
God created the penguin in his own image, and all dressed up to go
to a party.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:14 PM EST |
Newsforge went and checked, in case there was any doubt, Linus told the truth
and Darl gets caught in another lie.
The transparency of Linux makes a liar out of McBride every time he opens his
mouth.
As for the "expert", there can't possibly be one.
The story is here :
http://www.newsforge.com/trends/03/12/23/0918213.shtml?tid=137&tid=147&t
id=2&tid=82&tid=94[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:15 PM EST |
SCO the Movie: Casting Call (Feel Free to ADD to the List)
Darl McBride: John Lovitz
Kevin McBride: Jim Carey
Blake Stowell: Danny DeVito
David Boies: Burt Reynolds
Mark Heise: John Larroquette
Laura DiDio: Goldie Hawn
Rob Enderle: Steve Martin
Pamela Jones: Sandra Bullock
Linus Torvalds: Matthew Broderick
David Marriott: Sam Waterston (Asst. D.A. from Law & Order)
Bill Gates: James Spader
Hon. Dale A. Kimball: Gene Hackman
Judge Wells: Rhea Perlman [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:20 PM EST |
| See here.
Steve Cakebread obtained a BS from the University of California and a
MBA from
Indiana University.
Steve started
working for HP but in 1993 joined Vice President of
Finance with Silicon Graphics, Inc as Vice
President of
Finance. In 1997 he left SGI to become Chief Financial Officer
of Autodesk, Inc.
In 2000 Cakebread joined
the SCO Board
of Directors. In 2002 he left
Autodesk, Inc and became Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of SalesForce.com.
He is replaced by Daniel
W. Campbell, CPA, as Chairman of the Audit Committee.
Daniel W. Campbell has
been Vice-Chairman of the Utah
Valley State College Board
of Trustees, member of the National Advisory
Council of the Marriott
School of Business at Brigham Young
University, director, Chairman of
the Audit and Compensation Committees,
Nu
Skin Enterprises, Inc and partner
in the San Francisco and Salt Lake City
offices of Price Waterhouse.
In 1992
Campbell became Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, WordPerfect Corporation.
By 1994 he was
Managing General Partner of EsNet, Ltd. ( Provo, Utah )
Daniel W. Campbell
was appointed to the SCO Board of Directors
and Audit Committee of
the Board of Directors in 2003.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:21 PM EST |
Does this have anything to do with anything?
"The SCO Group Announces Board
of Directors Changes:
Daniel W. Campbell Appointed Chairman of Audit
Committee"
Click here for the story on Yahoo. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:25 PM EST |
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031223/latu041_1.html
Mike A.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lnx4me on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:26 PM EST |
| Board Changes....
link here
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: deList on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:28 PM EST |
This is off topic... Here is a new Darl interview in
Investors Business Daily. Here are some nuggets:
"We're very pleased
with how things are developing. We're going back and forth giving each other
documents and code."
"If you go back to the late '90s, this
was a billion-dollar business and growing - right at a point when this
burgeoning Intel-Unix market was going to explode and we were in the leading
position in that market."
Whose business? SCO's?
"First, when a user gets Linux, they inherit a license agreement
called the GPL (General Public License) that says you get this product free of
charge, so if you have a problem with it, don't come back to us, you're on your
own. The words in the GPL are "as is." It pushes all of the liability to the end
user."
"The Free Software Foundation takes the stance that
proprietary software is evil, that paid-for software should not exist. Until
all software is ground down to a price of zero, their mission is not
done."
---
When the stock price again goes
below $1...Don't resist, 'deList'. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shoden on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:53 PM EST |
"If a reader goes home with a book, reads it, reproduces it and gives it
to 500 friends, they are direct infringers. What we see happening here is nine
out of 10 boxes of Linux out in the marketplace aren't paid for at all, even if
they'd paid for a support contract. Once they get that Linux in their shop,
they're free to reproduce it and send it around to their heart's content. They
do, in fact, become copyright infringers. That's why we're going there."
-- Darl
Darl is correct in this statement, however, the statement is taken out of
context.
What Darl failed to mention is that the end-user is copying a book that the
author(s) said "Go ahead and copy." If the author(s) of that book
plagerized, then the authors would be considered liable.
Darl reminds me of the kid who gets caught in a lie and then keeps lying and
lying until no one listens anymore.
---
S.K.
MR. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, I have a smaller, obviously --[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:06 PM EST |
I think it is by now obvious that the legal department of SCO is doing the
equivalent of sinking their own ship, and they are getting more and more
reckless while stockholders and personnel scheduled to be downsized still think
there is something sincere going on.
Of all things they could have picked on for supporting their claims, they have
pretty much chosen the most imaginable weak one.
Why? For one thing, they are expected to put up an effort, and this qualifies
on some front. But really ask yourself: what reasons are there for sinking your
own ship?
One reason might be pure greed (pump and dump). Another more likely reason is
to don't hand over usable material to the enemy when conquered. And I believe
we are witnessing this strategem here.
When the case started, it looked like there would be an opportunity to challenge
Linux development and the GPL in court. Later it became obvious that the claims
are too thin to have a chance to succeed. There are obviously some players
behind the scheme that would like to get the maximum damage to the reputation of
the GPL done. A court case against it is not the worst thing when coupled with
a smear campaign. At some point of time somebody figured that they have no
reasonable chance of winning in court.
Now the aim is to prolong the public attacks upon Linux and GPL reputation as
long as it is possible, and make sure that at the same time there is no chance
of getting a definite court decision as a precedence for the validity of the
GPL.
For this reason, SCO's legal department is on the one hand stalling for time as
long as they can. On the other hand, they take increasingly bold measures to
ensure that the case will be thrown out of court before any really sticking
legal precedents _for_ the GPL and its validity are reached.
It is important for the schemers behind all this that SCO should fail before
things get too serious in court. Who is it that has the ressources for playing
that sort of gambit that is financed to a good degree out of the pockets of
stockholders and company members, probably only needing to substantially grease
a few traitors to the company?
And what role did he or she play in setting up Groklaw and keeping it running?
It is the perfect tool for sabotaging one's own cause without seeming too
obvious about it. And the people that contribute information here and share the
enthusiasm and carry its message on probably don't realize that the quality of
incriminating material readily converging here is not least due to it sometimes
coming straight from the horse's mouth.
Is the puppeteer pulling the strings behind Groklaw the same one that fooled a
bunch of hobbyists into believing that they were able to produce an enterprise
level operating system all between themselves?
Don't you see you are being taken for a ride?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:22 PM EST |
They do that sort of thing in law school right? Aren't there some persons here
who could serve as advisors? I would be interested in seeing a serious attempt
to present both sides.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:23 PM EST |
SCO seems to think that the words "as is" and "without warranty" somehow
shift the burden of liability to the last person to touch the product. Since
Redhat gave it to a customer, Redhat isn't liable, the customer is.
Okay
Darl, explain this then. Quote from IBD
interview:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/031223/tech01_1.html
At
the end of the line is the end user. And so that's where we go with our
claims next. The Free Software Foundation says it's ludicrous for SCO to be
going after an end user. They say it's like a reader going into Barnes &
Noble reading a book and telling them they can't read those words or we're going
to sue. But it's actually much different than that analogy.
First, when a
user gets Linux, they inherit a license agreement called the GPL (General Public
License) that says you get this product free of charge, so if you have a problem
with it, don't come back to us, you're on your own. The words in the GPL are "as
is." It pushes all of the liability to the end user.
The second part
where their example breaks down is the fact that the end users are part of
the problem - they're making copies themselves. What you'll see SCO coming
out with in the next few weeks are examples of copyrighted code of ours that
have been put into Linux, and the copyrights have been stripped
off.
If a reader goes home with a book, reads it, reproduces it and
gives it to 500 friends, they are direct infringers. What we see happening
here is nine out of 10 boxes of Linux out in the marketplace aren't paid for at
all, even if they'd paid for a support contract. Once they get that Linux in
their shop, they're free to reproduce it and send it around to their heart's
content. They do, in fact, become copyright infringers. That's why we're
going there.
Okay Darl, how then, if the stated reason above for
going after an end user is that they copy the software around and therefore are
direct infringers, is a Linux distributor not a direct infringer by that
definition? It cannot be argued that distributors make more copies of
Linux than ANYONE else.
Notice it's not because you are
using Linux, it's because you copied it around. So, say if I download RedHat 9
12 times and install each download separately on separate machines, I have not
actually copied the software around rather than receiving 12 distributions from
RedHat. Does this mean I am not an infringer?
This is quite possibly the
WEAKEST possible argument SCO could have made and proves 2 things:
1) They
are grasping at straws
2) They are focussed solely on money
The
argument Darl makes is completely illogical. Despite the fact that SCO has said
otherwise in the past about suing Linux users directly, they have said so
directly:
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1001609.html?tag=fd_top
"Legal liability may rest with the end users. It is not carried by the
distributor or by anyone else involved in selling that Linux distribution into
these commercial accounts. It resides with the end users, which is unheard
of. They need to know they have exposure in this issue," Sontag said.
There you have it. SCO said unambiguously that Linux distrubtors
have no liability for distributing Linux. But the argument is that infringers
are infringers because they copy Linux. So it's not that if you copy Linux your
are liable, it's only if you make the LAST copy. I'd really like to see the
judges face when SCO tries to make that arugment in
court.
-pooky ---
IANAL, etc... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:24 PM EST |
Have you noticed how Darl takes every opportunity to spread FUD?
'But at the speed the Linux project has gone forward something gets lost along
the way in terms of care with intellectual property.'
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Captain on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:28 PM EST |
While most of us follow the stocks and the case with close scrutiny, I think
most of them just use financial reports, and mainstream newsitems. I think
something major has to happen before the bubble pops, like the case getting
thrown out.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kb8rln on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 02:56 PM EST |
Are SCO looking at Sec. 1203. Civil remedies
or 1204. Criminal offenses
and penalties
First, if we are looking at criminal side of the
law then what prosecutor will take the case or will the grand juries let the
case go though
If we are looking at the civil side, where is SCO
going to get the money for court.
Why can we not just use the DMCA or
fair use laws to protect us because the files they are listing are less then
1200 lines of code?.
1201 (f)REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1)
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has
lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a
technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion
of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements
of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an
independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not
previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention,
to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute
infringement under this title.
Enjoy,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 03:02 PM EST |
Steve Cakebread has resigned from the board of directors at SCO. Does anyone
know how to find out if he has any outstanding shares in SCO or whether he sold
them all?
RS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT - SCO Movement - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 03:19 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 03:46 PM EST |
Is there a fundamental reason why SCO's lawyers could not claim copyright
infringement exists because the codes are quite similar?
In 2001 Margaret Mitchell's estate (successfully until reverse on appeal) sued
Alice Randall for copyright infringement. Alice's *wholly original* work of
fiction, The Wind Done Gone, used a cast of characters and a plotline very
similar to Margaret's work, Gone with the Wind.
Here is one pundit's claim,
"You can have a parody, but if you take too much it's a copyright
infringement," Garbus said. "That's it. Too much material has been
taken." ( see http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/25-3/bct-suntrust.html.)
Why couldn't SCO claim, using a copyright infringement theory similar to the
Mitchell Estate v. Randall case,
that Linus' errno.h &etc. files infringe their copyright
even if he wrote them from scratch? After all, they employ
the same names for the same functionality (analogous to a character name and
traits) and structure (analogous to a plotline).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: robert on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 07:42 PM EST |
A post-SCO suggestion.
Once SCO have been reduced to a smoking ruin, which seems more and more likely
the more revelations we see about sco's claims, why not spend the few dollars
necessary to acquire the remaining assets from the liquidators - specifically
the sco.com domain name?
It would seem appropriate that www.sco.com would remain in existance as a
permanent reminder of what has happened. Maybe a small site summarising the case
history. Maybe a small "competition" for community contributions to
a front page design. Some nice links to GNU and definitions of the GPL etc. Hey,
if you're feeling energetic maybe even an online forum where the Linux
community can help the poor souls stuck with sco systems to migrate.
Just a thought. A virtual "line in the sand" even....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NicholasDonovan on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 07:58 PM EST |
If I may...
These header files that SCO is referring to are standard POSIX type files which
will look very similar on most operating systems.
SCO Execs...You picked the wrong enemy kids.
SCO has already lost the case IMHO.
As a guy who leads a software company, I can tell you we've have coded very
similar header files with no help from Darl & Co.
In fact just to throw a proverbial (unfortunately not real) punch in Daryl's
face, here is the code for BSD-Unix ioctl.h
Note: I removed the comments in front to save room... We all know who coded
these and it's not from SCO's intellectual property barn. :-)
Standard xBSD Style ioctl.h
--------------------------
* @(#)ioctl.h 8.6 (Berkeley) 3/28/94
*/
#ifndef _SYS_IOCTL_H_
#define _SYS_IOCTL_H_
#include
/*
* Pun for SunOS prior to 3.2. SunOS 3.2 and later support TIOCGWINSZ
* and TIOCSWINSZ (yes, even 3.2-3.5, the fact that it wasn't documented
* nonwithstanding).
*/
struct ttysize {
unsigned short ts_lines;
unsigned short ts_cols;
unsigned short ts_xxx;
unsigned short ts_yyy;
};
#define TIOCGSIZE TIOCGWINSZ
#define TIOCSSIZE TIOCSWINSZ
#include
#include
#include
#include
extern int ioctl (int fd, unsigned long request, void *argp);
#if 0 /* Hector commented these out */
#ifndef _KERNEL
#include
__BEGIN_DECLS
int ioctl __P((int, unsigned long, ...));
__END_DECLS
#endif /* !_KERNEL */
#endif /* !_SYS_IOCTL_H_ */
/*
* Keep outside _SYS_IOCTL_H_
* Compatability with old terminal driver
*
* Source level -> #define USE_OLD_TTY
* Kernel level -> options COMPAT_43 or COMPAT_SUNOS or ...
*/
#if defined(USE_OLD_TTY) || defined(COMPAT_43) || defined(COMPAT_SUNOS) || \
defined(COMPAT_SVR4) || defined(COMPAT_FREEBSD)
#include
#endif
#endif
-----------------------------
Now for all you brainiacs at SCO...here is the code for Linux ioctl.h
* linux/ioctl.h for Linux by H.H. Bergman.
*/
#ifndef _ASMI386_IOCTL_H
#define _ASMI386_IOCTL_H
/* ioctl command encoding: 32 bits total, command in lower 16 bits,
* size of the parameter structure in the lower 14 bits of the
* upper 16 bits.
* Encoding the size of the parameter structure in the ioctl request
* is useful for catching programs compiled with old versions
* and to avoid overwriting user space outside the user buffer area.
* The highest 2 bits are reserved for indicating the ``access mode''.
* NOTE: This limits the max parameter size to 16kB -1 !
*/
/*
* The following is for compatibility across the various Linux
* platforms. The i386 ioctl numbering scheme doesn't really enforce
* a type field. De facto, however, the top 8 bits of the lower 16
* bits are indeed used as a type field, so we might just as well make
* this explicit here. Please be sure to use the decoding macros
* below from now on.
*/
#define _IOC_NRBITS 8
#define _IOC_TYPEBITS 8
#define _IOC_SIZEBITS 14
#define _IOC_DIRBITS 2
#define _IOC_NRMASK ((1 << _IOC_NRBITS)-1)
#define _IOC_TYPEMASK ((1 << _IOC_TYPEBITS)-1)
#define _IOC_SIZEMASK ((1 << _IOC_SIZEBITS)-1)
#define _IOC_DIRMASK ((1 << _IOC_DIRBITS)-1)
#define _IOC_NRSHIFT 0
#define _IOC_TYPESHIFT (_IOC_NRSHIFT+_IOC_NRBITS)
#define _IOC_SIZESHIFT (_IOC_TYPESHIFT+_IOC_TYPEBITS)
#define _IOC_DIRSHIFT (_IOC_SIZESHIFT+_IOC_SIZEBITS)
/*
* Direction bits.
*/
#define _IOC_NONE 0U
#define _IOC_WRITE 1U
#define _IOC_READ 2U
#define _IOC(dir,type,nr,size) \
(((dir) << _IOC_DIRSHIFT) | \
((type) << _IOC_TYPESHIFT) | \
((nr) << _IOC_NRSHIFT) | \
((size) << _IOC_SIZESHIFT))
/* provoke compile error for invalid uses of size argument */
extern int __invalid_size_argument_for_IOC;
#define _IOC_TYPECHECK(t) \
((sizeof(t) == sizeof(t[1]) && \
sizeof(t) < (1 << _IOC_SIZEBITS)) ? \
sizeof(t) : __invalid_size_argument_for_IOC)
/* used to create numbers */
#define _IO(type,nr) _IOC(_IOC_NONE,(type),(nr),0)
#define _IOR(type,nr,size) _IOC(_IOC_READ,(type),(nr),(_IO C_TYPECHECK(size)))
#define _IOW(type,nr,size) _IOC(_IOC_WRITE,(type),(nr),(_I OC_TYPECHECK(size)))
#define _IOWR(type,nr,size) _IOC(_IOC_READ|_IOC_WRITE,(typ
e),(nr),(_IOC_TYPECHECK(size)))
#define _IOR_BAD(type,nr,size) _IOC(_IOC_READ,(type),(nr), sizeof(size))
#define _IOW_BAD(type,nr,size) _IOC(_IOC_WRITE,(type),(nr) ,sizeof(size))
#define _IOWR_BAD(type,nr,size) _IOC(_IOC_READ|_IOC_WRITE,
(type),(nr),sizeof(size))
/* used to decode ioctl numbers.. */
#define _IOC_DIR(nr) (((nr) >> _IOC_DIRSHIFT) & _IOC_DIRMASK)
#define _IOC_TYPE(nr) (((nr) >> _IOC_TYPESHIFT) & _IOC_TYPEMASK)
#define _IOC_NR(nr) (((nr) >> _IOC_NRSHIFT) & _IOC_NRMASK)
#define _IOC_SIZE(nr) (((nr) >> _IOC_SIZESHIFT) & _IOC_SIZEMASK)
/* ...and for the drivers/sound files... */
#define IOC_IN (_IOC_WRITE << _IOC_DIRSHIFT)
#define IOC_OUT (_IOC_READ << _IOC_DIRSHIFT)
#define IOC_INOUT ((_IOC_WRITE|_IOC_READ) << _IOC_DIRSHIFT)
#define IOCSIZE_MASK (_IOC_SIZEMASK << _IOC_SIZESHIFT)
#define IOCSIZE_SHIFT (_IOC_SIZESHIFT)
#endif /* _ASMI386_IOCTL_H */
---------------
Yo Darl..... I guess he can't hear me... let's try again....
Hey Idiot! Do you notice a difference? The sys refs, defines etc. are
different.
There is no similarity moron.
You LOSE!
In the words of my friends from SuSE...
HAVE A LOT OF FUN!
I know I will seeing you in prison stripes and/or broke when this is all over
with.
Computer - $790.00
Monitor - $440.00
High Speed Line - $120.00 month
Seeing the biggest idiot in IT today get his walking papers? PRICELESS
For everything else there's Linux.
Nick
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: swillden on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 12:53 AM EST |
It's lame that Linus's first
defense is "I personally wrote errno.h" and
then his second defense
is "whoops, you're right, I copied it from somewhere
else, but I don't
have the whole history available".
You're
mischaracterizing Linus' first statement. In his first statement,
he clearly
indicated that he had not analyzed errno.h, but was sure he
hadn't copied it
because he knew that the fact that the numbers were
different had cause
problems later. He didn't make any sort of positive
affirmation that he had
written errno.h, or that he recalled writing it. He
only said that other bits
of remembered information argued strongly
against it being copied.
Also,
don't read anything into the ordering of the defintions. They're
clearly in
numerical order which is the obvious way to organize them.
The fact that the
numbers are the same is still telling, but don't harp about
ordering, because
it's meaningless. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbn on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 01:32 PM EST |
"As a social revolutionary, Linus Torvalds is a genius," Mr.
McBride said [...]
This is yet another point on which
McBride is simply wrong. But a lot of other people don't understand
how McBride is wrong because they too believe Torvalds is some kind of
revolutionary.
What Torvalds is working on is not solely his work
anymore. It is the combined work of dozens of other people around the world.
Their combined efforts make the Linux kernal what it is today. This has been
the case for the majority of time the Linux kernal has been
distributed.
But there's a deeper, more profound way in which Torvalds
is not the "social revolutionary" many see him to be. Torvalds builds his work
on a truly revolutionary legal and moral framework Torvalds had nothing to do
with building--the concept of Free Software and the GNU General Public License
(GPL). The GPL's share and share alike core is the legal mechanism that allows
us to stand up against bullies like SCO and Microsoft unafraid that we'll be
proven wrong.
Furthermore, Torvalds doesn't agree with the concept of
software freedom. He believes in using whatever software is pragmatic at the
moment he is using it. Hence he uses proprietary development software (such as
Bitkeeper) and works with proprietors who want to build on the Linux kernal
without sharing the complete corresponding source code to their work (binary
drivers). For Torvalds, it's not an issue of taking freedom away from Linux
kernal users, it's an issue of thinking in the short term--pick what works best
now. This is why the Free Software Foundation (who wrote the GPL well before
the Linux kernal was available) wants people to know there is a clear
separation between their effort to make all software free and Torvalds'
work. The folks at the FSF appreciate what Torvalds has done by
contributing so much valued code to Free Software users, but this does not mean
Torvalds speaks for the FSF's interests.
It's ironic that McBride
could probably have found a way to get along with Torvalds' view of how
proprietary software can be distributed while linked to the Linux kernal,
thus giving McBride sole copyright control and near total secrecy over this
non-free code. Torvalds is only one of the copyright holders to the Linux
kernal, so his opinion about linking should not be taken as the gospel. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: asacan on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 11:19 PM EST |
Between 1986 and 1991, I had written over 200 songs, being young, and wanting
to be in a "rock-and-roll" band. That's not really the case, but anyway....
Some of my works had been lucky enough to be copyrighted, thanks to my musician
friend and some monied people who thought we were almost worth a damn.
At any
rate, in the last 12 years, I've not seen the notebooks that I'd used to write
most of those songs, but you can bet I know what I wrote. Now, I couldn't give
you every last stanza without refreshing my memory, but few of my works had been
digitally recorded in the manner that Linus' work had.
I have no doubt in my
mind that Linus knows what he, himself, had written, whereas I doubt that Mr.
McBride has a clue as to what Linus actually said or meant while describing that
particular code in question.
Again, Mr. McBride is showing the world what
kind of moron he is, and what kind of two-bit operation he's running. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
