|
They "Show" the Code |
|
Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 04:27 AM EDT
|
Well, those slides went to SCOForum, even if Boies didn't. Here's the mainstream account:Sontag then showed, in a series of slides, Linux code that he claimed has been literally copied from Unix. He said numerous comments, unusual spellings and typographical errors had also been copied directly into Linux. Much of the Unix code in the slides was obscured, because the company wants to keep its intellectual property under wraps, but SCO is allowing people who want to see a more extensive side-by-side comparison during the conference to do so if they sign a nondisclosure agreement. For Your Eyes Only, I guess. Somebody at the conference is
posting to Yahoo! Finance as Korbomite, and his account of what he saw isn't exactly the same:
McBride showed a number of what I would have thought were classroom exercises in a first-year c programming class. One side was marked as "Linux," one as UNIX®. The code seemed to be basic iterative programming and set-up code, as you would see in any text or on a test. Primarily, it seemed to be initializations of variables and set-up of stacks and heaps. At no time was there any explanation of or provision to provenance of either code example. No one brought up the general availability of the Linux source tree and the time it has been available vs. the date of SCO's filing. No one questioned the sheer AMOUNT of claimed code vs. the total in the kernel/module space. There WERE striking similarities in the examples, but there were also differences." I see CNET reporting that the crowd burst into applause at one point. Korbomite says there were "far fewer" than 1,000 people there. I haven't seen that pointed out anywhere else. And when they applauded, it was about OpenServer's features, which include ... um... Samba, a GPLd product. Bit of a disconnect there. ITWorld reports that they are now claiming a million lines of code, derivative code, not direct copying. eWeek says the same thing, adding that Sontag says "it's highly unlikely the matter could be resolved by removing that code". No, you won't let us remove it. Then the case would be over. Talking derivative code instead of copying means nothing can be fixed until we go to trial and hear their "rocket scientists" testify to how they used "spectral analysis" to find common code. Rocket scientists found the allegedly infringing code. Anything sound fishy to you about that?
Here's the CRN description: While it was difficult to ascertain the exact code being shown on screen, attorneys pointed to exact copying of some code from Unix to Linux and claimed that IBM improperly donated almost a million lines of Unix System V code to the Linux 2.4x and Linux 2.5x kernel that infringe on its Unix System V contract with SCO -- and SCO's intellectual property. SCO claimed that much of the core code of Linux including Non-Uniform Memory Access, the Read Copy Update for high-end database scalability, Journaling File System, XFS, Schedulers, Linux PPC 32 and 64-bit support and enterprise volume management is covered by SCO's Unix System V contracts and copyrights.
"For example, 110,000 lines of Unix System V code for read copy update, 55,000 lines of NUMA code and more than 750,000 lines of symmetric multi-processing code from Unix System V has made its way into Linux, attorneys and SCO executives claimed. Again, McBride compared GNU/Linux users to pirates: "We're fighting for a right in the industry to make a living selling software," McBride said. "The whole notion that software should be free is something SCO doesn't stand for. We have drawn the line. We're supposed to be excited about that and we're not. . . . "Globally, it's not just about Red Hat and IBM. There are a lot of issues around IP with music, and in Hollywood. We are in the software industry having these issues and this can have a significant impact going forward. The evidence we have is strong." So, you've been warned, coders. SCO won't stand for it if you let people use your code for free. And this tidbit: It seems HP is their new best friend, to hear McBride tell it: But SCO's McBride said that there are two companies he has no intention of going after: Hewlett-Packard Co. and Sun Microsystems Inc. "We have no problems with Sun and HP with regards to infringement as both have honored the conditions of their Unix license contracts and operated within these," he said. Seems they are planning on rolling out a 64-bit UNIX for Itanium 2 one of these days: SCO Group Inc is proving its commitment to the future of Unix on Intel Corp processors by announcing plans for new versions of its OpenServer and UnixWare flavors and a new 64-bit version for Itanium 2. The Lindon, Utah-based company has been through multiple projects to develop a 64-bit version of Unix for Intel in the past, most recently Project Monterey with IBM Corp, which led in part to the current legal battle between the two companies. SCO said it will be careful not to infringe on any information gained through those projects in the development of SCO Unix 9, the new 64-bit variant due for release in 2005. What are the odds of this staying out of the case? My favorite quotation? One SCO exec said, "Under the microscope we're in, I'm sure we'll do the right thing." That's as opposed to when they are not being watched closely, I presume. Here it says they have formed a partnership with Open Systems, Inc. , a company that does accounting software for Windows, UNIX, and Linux. Here's what Open Systems, Inc.'s VP of Marketing Mil Miketic has to say about what they will be working on together with SCO: "SCO is a strategic partner for Open Systems," said Miketic. "Both of our organizations share a common target market, and we can leverage our combined channel strengths to take advantage of the rising popularity of Linux applications in creating accounting solutions for small to medium-sized businesses." So, maybe the actual explanation is that SCO wishes to grab Linux for itself, claim ownership, get the GPL invalidated, get paid royalties, and then...profit! And this is about honoring IP? What about the owners of the GPL code? Planning on at least sharing the loot with the guys who actually wrote the code and didn't turn over their copyrights to you, you SCO pirates? Of course, I could be hallucinating, I suppose. A bit more explanation from Moglen in the Register, on the GPL.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 02:50 AM EDT |
A column in
the DenverPost gives an interesting view of a retired journalist on current
copyright issues. First paragraph:
Although I own hundreds of copyrights, I'm beginning to think that society
would be best served if copyright laws were repealed. MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 02:56 AM EDT |
What's wrong with this picture?
"SCO is also providing Web Services support components and toolkits specifically
designed for SCO OpenServer and UnixWare. These components include additions and
updates for Apache and Tomcat, XML parsers and toolkits for SOAP programming in
C/C++, Java, PHP and Perl."
http://biz.yahoo.com/prn
ews/030818/lam043_1.html Chris Curran[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 03:21 AM EDT |
Well, it's now glaringly obvious that the purpose of SCO's SCAM is to hijack
Linux.
I bet if those if those so-called "rocket scientists" took code like apache or
samba and did a spectral analysis comparison to Linux, there would also be
"alarming similarities!"
I sincerely hope that those who matter (i.e. those who shall squash SCO,
including the US justice system) are seeing through all the FUD and recognizing
what SCO is really up to.
It's certainly funny that they declare the GPL invalid while at the same time
budling all sorts of GPL'ed products in their products. If the GPL is invalid,
where did they get the license to bundle those products? How are they respecing
IP?
Losers MajorLeePissed[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 04:33 AM EDT |
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1143098
[quote] At the SCOForum, the company's annual partner conference in Las Vegas,
McBride said he had just met with SCO's 25 largest customers and that they had
all "understood" the company's position and its moves to chase infringement of
its intellectual property.
He also noted that these corporations would not be first in line when SCO
considered legal action against users.
"Obviously, we are not going to go against our own users first," he said [end
quote]
-------
IANAL and IANAJ (Judge), but wouldn't a judge be just a wee bit ticked off by
someone who not only claims to have been wronged, but thinks that *he* gets to
say who gets punished and who doesn't?? I guess we don't need judges when
McBride is making the decisions on behalf of the Law.
I hope this priceless soundbite gets tucked away in IBM's collection for airing
at the trial. Belzecue[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 04:38 AM EDT |
If the GPL is invalid, what about HP and Sun?
If SCO 'has no problem with Sun or HP', as SCO says,
(I believe it was McBride), then how can they say
the GPL is invalid?
HP distributes Linux under the GPL, Sun has announced
plans to do so.
If this is OK with SCO, because as they further state,
Sun and HP have not violated any contracts, then the
release to the public of any infringing code in Linux
under the GPL is legitimate. By implication, the GPL
would seem to be valid; at least, it would doubtless
be another return to Wonderland should McBride et al.
care to explain this seeming contradiction.
td Thomas Downing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 05:47 AM EDT |
I find it hard to believe that anyone who has reached the position of CEO of a
company the size of SCO is as stupid as McBride wants us to believe. (I'm not
saying SCO is large. My company is larger, in revenue, and larger in profit.
Different industry, however.)
To that end I view this constantly amusing situation as one of two things: that
McBride does indeed want to be able to sell Linux or use the source code of
Linux (how? I'm not sure. Their attorneys seem to be abysmally stupid as
well.) in some way. Or, McBridge is attempting to dump stock.
You could go paranoid and say that SCO and Microsoft have an agreement behind
the scenes that if SCO should attempt to discredit Linux in as many ways as
possible that Microsoft would buy SCO. It'd be pocket change for Microsoft to
acquire SCO at this point, but would benefit the shareholders and executes of
SCO immensely.
There's more to this than what's on the surface. It will be interesting to
discover the facts as we go. Anyone taking bets that SCO attempts to close the
evidence in the case for intellectual property reasons? Brian Schkerke[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 06:14 AM EDT |
If SCO 'has no problem with Sun or HP', as SCO says, (I believe it was
McBride), then how can they say the GPL is invalid?
It almost seems that SCO have some wierd kind of idea that in their rights to
the AT&T Unix code they own the design ideas behind all kernel implementations
that look like Unix. The GPL may be used license and protect the code in a
specific implementation, but (to their mind) there still has to be some license
that permits someone to actually make and give away such a piece of
software.
This could at least explain their acceptance of Sun and HP as not infringing
(because they haven't GPLed any code that reimplements the AT&T Unix design
ideas) while going against IBM and Sequent. It still isn't a terribly
satisfying explanation though. Songmaster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 06:16 AM EDT |
Clipped from the Yahoo SCOX board,
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=16
00684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=29448
[Quotation begins.]
SCO's "proof". A joke.
by: d1rkinator 08/19/03 09:10 am
Msg: 29448 of 29448
The code SCO finds offending:
http://www.h
eise.de/newsticker/data/jk-19.08.03-000/imh0.jpg
http://www.h
eise.de/newsticker/data/jk-19.08.03-000/imh1.jpg
Its location in Linux:
/usr/src/linux-2.4.20/arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c
And its heritage:
http://minni
e.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/sys/malloc.c.html
Ok, SCO: This was easy. Now, show us the other many examples.
[Quotation ends.] Kai Puolamaki[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 06:26 AM EDT |
I find the comment obfuscation in imh0.jpg amusing. The Greek letters are pretty
easy to transliterate back. At the risk of infringing the DMCA, here's the
original text:
"As part of the kernel evolution toward modular naming, the
functions malloc and mfree are being renamed to rmalloc and rmfree.
Compatibility will be maintained by the following assembler code:
(also see mfree/rmfree below)" Ben Hutchings[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 06:53 AM EDT |
cf. http://unix-archive.pdp11.org.ru/PDP-11/Trees/2.11BSD/sys/sys/subr_rmap.c
That's some really old comments they're showing.
(link found in yahoo post at
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&act
ion=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=29462) bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 06:58 AM EDT |
I did a little bit of Googling. The pictures originate from a Heise article (in
German):
http://www.heise.de/
newsticker/data/jk-19.08.03-000/
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.heise.de/
newsticker/data/jk-19.08.03-000/
These particular code snippets (imh0.jpg and imh1.jpg) were apparently discussed
in linux.kernel already in June: http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=20030619225010$67aa@gated-at.bofh.it
Based on the above discussion in linux.kernel: apparently the code snippet is
from UNIX V7, which was - again according to linux.kernel discussion - put under
BSD-like license by Caldera in 2002! (Both snippets seem to originate from V7
mfree function.) The copyright notices in the Linux (ate_utils.c) point to
SGI. Kai Puolamaki[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 07:23 AM EDT |
Which means that SCO has to beat:
<tt>* Copyright (c) 1986 Regents of the University of California.</tt>
for the comments in the code. MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 07:28 AM EDT |
It gets even better.
http://unix-archive.pdp11.org.ru/PDP-11/Trees/2.11BSD/sys/sys/subr_rmap.c
This is BSD code!
SCO explicitly said that none of the "infringing" code is from BSD! Jeremy
Stanley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 07:35 AM EDT |
Actually they admit they didn't (usefully) identify the code
Speaking at the company's annual SCOForum conference in Las Vegas, SCO president
and chief executive, Darl McBride (pictured), maintained that other companies
would not be able to find the offending code because only SCO can see System V
code and determine which lines have been illegally included.
From http://www.vnunet.com/News/1143097
More links
HP/Intel/Boies - link to Groklaw here
http://www.theinquirer.net/?art
icle=11097
Brief attorney comments at end
http://news.com.com/2100-101
6_3-5065422.html quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 07:35 AM EDT |
Actually they admit they didn't (usefully) identify the code
Speaking at the company's annual SCOForum conference in Las Vegas, SCO president
and chief executive, Darl McBride (pictured), maintained that other companies
would not be able to find the offending code because only SCO can see System V
code and determine which lines have been illegally included.
From http://www.vnunet.com/News/1143097
More links
HP/Intel/Boies - link to Groklaw here
http://www.theinquirer.net/?art
icle=11097
Brief attorney comments at end
http://news.com.com/2100-101
6_3-5065422.html quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 08:01 AM EDT |
That snippet of code purportedly dates back to 1979...
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=16
00684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=29446 Belzecue[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 08:03 AM EDT |
May as well take you all the way down this scenic memory lane...
http://minni
e.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/sys/malloc.c.html Belzecue[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 08:10 AM EDT |
Oh this is absolutely priceless. That 80-line sample is for malloc(), one of
the most fundementally basic functions from the standard C library! And it's
almost certainly derived from BSD Unix, which as everyone knows has been free
software for a rather long time.
Who is willing to bet that the rest of the "millions of lines of code" are also
from BSD Unix, in the standard C libraries and other similiar sources. SCO is
going to have NO chance of proving that they own this stuff, particularly since
the standard C libraries--being a standard--have appeared on practically every
OS platform on the planet.
I suppose the next logical move from SCO will be to announce they are going to
try and get the settlement between BSD and ATT overturned so that all the lovely
BSD code that has been "wrongfully incorporated into every OS since SYSV" can
revert back to SCO's control. Good luck trying to get a judge to buy that one,
McBride. He or she will just reiterate the original judgement, that the code is
just too generic to be owned by any one company, and it's been in general use
for decades to boot.
Bwaahahahaha. SCO is going to lose big time. Philip Stephens[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 08:22 AM EDT |
Apparently, the offending code didn't orginate in System V...
htt
p://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/32VKern/usr/src/sys/sys/malloc.c.html
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/
and this one:
"Copyright (C) 1992 - 1997, 2000-2002 Silicon Graphics, Inc. All rights
reserved."
http://www.atomised.org/docs/linux-2.4.19-arch/ate__utils_8c-source.html
Rand[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 08:26 AM EDT |
Lines of code in Linux
Section 1.2:
http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/
linux/lk/lk-1.html
Difference between 2.2 and 2.4 is only about 1.5 million lines
Difference between 2.4 and 2.5 is only about 1.7 million lines quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 08:33 AM EDT |
"The thing about Linux is, you can talk about a free, open operating
system all you want, but you can't take that idea of free and open
and put it into a capitalist system and maintain it as though it is
some kind of hippie commune or ashram. Because if you can do it like
that, at that point I'm like, 'Pass the hookah please!'"
-- Laura DiDio
http://www.salon.co
m/tech/feature/2003/08/18/sco_ibm/ David Person[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 08:35 AM EDT |
http://lwn.net/Articles/44981/ anonymous[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 08:49 AM EDT |
When we're talking about algorithms as fundamental as the implementation of
malloc, I know it is time to grab Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming" from
the bookshelf. In section 2.6 he discusses the algorithms for memory management;
the "first-fit" algorithm as implemented in the code was widely known in the
1960s.
The algorithm dates from before both UNIX and C. The only possible
infringement here is copyright infringement by literal copying of code. Patents
only last 20 years, and there's nothing secret to all this. So all we have to do
is:
- Trace the copyright owner
- Trace the copyist
- Hand the copyright owner a cluebat
- Wait
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 09:03 AM EDT |
not even that: as pointed out on the the LWN website, that piece of code has
been put under a BSD kind of license long ago. Dirk Husemann[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 09:21 AM EDT |
It could be that the copyright owner goes after McBride for crying wolf!
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 09:23 AM EDT |
Did SCO (Caldera) donate this code to Linux?
http://www
.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0308.2/0791.html quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 09:28 AM EDT |
Does Linux compile (let alone run)?
Look carefully at first two lines of
http://www.h
eise.de/newsticker/data/jk-19.08.03-000/imh1.jpg
It looks to me that the brackets are wrong, and this code would not even
compile quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 09:45 AM EDT |
HP contributed the code in question to linux?> Supa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
"It seems HP is their new best friend"
Which is funny because the linux code [1] that is alleged to be copied has a
header in which SGI claims copyright but has been added to linux by David
Mosberger <davidm@wailua.hpl.hp.com> [2][3].
[1] http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/marcelo/linux-2
.4/arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c
[2] http://source.mvista.com/pipermail/linuxppc-commit/2002-March/001981.html
[3] http://www.hpl.hp.com/per
sonal/David_Mosberger/ inc_x[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
Came from HP
http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/diffs/BitKeeper/deleted/.del-ate
_utils.c~f3dbb032c5361f93@1.1?nav=hist/BitKeeper/deleted/.del-ate_utils.c~f3dbb0
32c5361f93 anonymous[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 09:50 AM EDT |
http://www.h
eise.de/newsticker/data/jk-19.08.03-000/imh1.jpg
http://www.funet.fi/pub/Linux/PEOPL
E/Linus/v2.4/patch-html/patch-2.4.19/linux-2.4.19_arch_ia64_sn_io_ate_utils.c.ht
ml
* Lines: 206
* Date: Fri Aug 2 17:39:42 2002
* Orig file: linux-2.4.18/arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c
* Orig date: Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969
diff -urN linux-2.4.18/arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c
linux-2.4.19/arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c
@@ -0,0 +1,205 @@
+/* $Id: ate_utils.c,v 1.1 2002/02/28 17:31:25 marcelo Exp $
+ *
+ * This file is subject to the terms and conditions of the GNU General
Public
+ * License. See the file "COPYING" in the main directory of this archive
+ * for more details.
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 1992 - 1997, 2000-2002 Silicon Graphics, Inc. All rights
reserved.
+ */
It includes imh0 comments
+/*
+ * Allocate 'size' units from the given map.
+ * Return the base of the allocated space.
+ * In a map, the addresses are increasing and the
+ * list is terminated by a 0 size.
+ * Algorithm is first-fit.
+ */
That comment for the definition of alloc is over a decade old, I'm postive I
have seen it before in public documentation. David Mohring[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 09:54 AM EDT |
I think I'm beginning to understand SCO's behaviour now. This is all IMHO of
course:
I'm not longer convinced this is a stock dumping scam. McBride et al would have
to be pretty dumb to think that the SEC wouldn't come after them after SCO is
finally forced to reveal they never had a case all along.
No, I actually think that McBride truly believes SCO has a case. A couple of
months ago, some programmer or whoever in SCO discovered a couple of lines of
code in SYSV that look remarkably similiar to code in Linux. Not being a smart
programmer, they didn't recognise that it was generic code from an ancient
version of UNIX, almost certainly now in the public domain. McBride gets a
whiff of this, and after more digging the number of lines of identical code
keeps going up and up...
McBride is euphoric: "We've got evidence that our code is in Linux. Woo hoo,
let's sue em...but who do we sue? Of course, that code is copyrighted SGI, who
were in on the Monteray project with IBM...so let's sue IBM!". And so the saga
begins. McBride, not being a programmer at all, has absolutely no idea that the
so-called infringing code would never be able to be claimed by SCO. Neither do
the laywers. And any SCO programmers who might have known better are simply
ignored or shouted down.
Even though McBride et al think they have a very strong case, because SCO's
stock is literally going down the toilet, they decide they'd better start
playing up the PR. If they can boost the stock enough, they can get money to
follow through on the suit. Sure enough, they succeed, quite well in fact. Now
they are cooking...
While they are at it, how about starting a licensing scheme now rather than
waiting for the courts to hand them their victory in 2005. All they have to do
is show some people a few lines of infringing code under an NDA, enough to let
them spill the beans that yes the code has been copied, and companies will start
lining up in droves to buy the licenses rather than risk being sued and losing a
lot more money to SCO.
There is another reason for the NDA, of course: they know the Linux community
could try and take the infringing code out if they knew what it was. But hey,
look at this, we've now found so many lines of copied code that they wouldn't be
able to do this without completely crippling Linux. So, let's make them sweat
by not telling them what it is, and once they realise the enormity of the
problem they will also start lining up to spend megabucks for the right to keep
the code in Linux! In doing so, we bolster our case in the eyes of the courts,
since even the Linux community will have to admit they've been infringing on our
IP all these years.
At this point McBride et al are cackling in their sleep. But then a crack
appears...oh oh, did you read that GPL thingy? It says that if the courts agree
there is infringing code in Linux, then Linux cannot be distributed at all.
That'll put a crimp in our ability to wring money out of everyone. Sure, it'll
kill off Linux once and for all, but there's no money in that for us...
Hmmm...perhaps we can invalid the GPL, putting Linux into the public
domain...no, that's no good, then we still can't charge for it. Maybe we can
convince the judge that copyright law somehow preempts the GPL, since surely
copyright law was never intended to *give* people the right to copy, only to
take that right away. Well, it's a long shot, but let's see what people say if
we throw that line of reasoning out to the press.
So that's what I think has been going on in the minds of McBride et al. Of
course, now that some of the infringing code has been revealed, and it's just
generic code from BSD, suddenly their case won't look as airtight as it once
did. So what are SCO going to do next?
I think there are two possibilities: the bubble bursts, they realise what idiots
they've been, and they quickly tuck their tails between their legs and let the
suit die.
Or...they decide the only way they're going to win this thing is to try and get
BSD vs. ATT tried all over again, and this time dammit, they're going to make
sure that SCO gets full rights over that pesky BSD code, and then the Linux and
Unix communities are going to have hell to pay...
Anyone want to take bets on which strategy they'll settle on? Philip Stephens[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 09:57 AM EDT |
Apologies to all ahead of time
"The thing about Linux is, you can talk about a free, open operating system all
you want, but you can't take that idea of free and open and put it into a
capitalist system and maintain it as though it is some kind of hippie commune or
ashram. Because if you can do it like that, at that point I'm like, 'Pass the
hookah please!'"
-- Laura DiDio
Ms. Didio, Why do you need a Hookah when you've got a crack pipe, a rolled-up
$100 bill, a spoon, a lighter and are sharing needles with "Mr. Practical", Darl
McBride?
Boy, oh boy .... Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 10:05 AM EDT |
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=allo
ca&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+1.0-RELEASE&format=html
4th Berkeley Distribution May 2, 1991 4th Berkeley Distribution David
Mohring[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 10:35 AM EDT |
Someone pass Ms. DiDio a hookah, because Red Hat, et al have most definitely
shown that you can take the idea of free and put it into a capitalist system and
maintain it (not to mention "...3. Profit!" from it). Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 10:41 AM EDT |
Groklaw: "ITWorld reports that they are now claiming a million lines of code,
derivative code, not direct copying. eWeek[link] says the same thing"
the link to eweek has something, IMHO, far more interesting. That is this part
of the email that was send by Eric Raymond as *president of the Open Source
Initiative* :
"We challenge SCO to specify exactly what code it believes to be infringing...
only with that disclosure can we begin the process of remedying any breach that
may exist... if SCO is willing to take the honest, cooperative path forward, so
are we. If it is not, let the record show that we tried before resorting to more
confrontational means of defending our community against predation," DNick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 10:41 AM EDT |
Bruce Perens: " Analysis of Linux
Code that SCO Alleges Is In Violation
Of Their Copyright and Trade Secrets"
http://perens.com/Articles/
SCOCopiedCode.html Kai Puolamaki[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 10:43 AM EDT |
PJ,
Fist, thanks for the wonderful work you have done!
Here is the article that confirms what I and many programmers have believed from
the being.
Check this link out, it confirms everything.
http://lwn.net/Articles/45019/
Again, thanks for all the hard work.
blhseawa Bruce Hutfless[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 11:02 AM EDT |
Philip Stephens wrote:
"I'm not longer convinced this is a stock dumping scam. McBride et al would have
to be pretty dumb to think that the SEC wouldn't come after them after SCO is
finally forced to reveal they never had a case all along."
I'm not sure I agree. The events and SCO statements of the last two weeks or so
make me think otherwise. Whatever you might think of David Boies, (and I have a
_very_ low opinion of him, viz Bush v. Gore!) his firm does have a lot of tech
experiance. Given such landmark stupidities as admitting, by implication, that
certain points in IBM's cross-complaint have merit; the flagrant GPL
difficulties they face; and the ever-changing story: I can only conclude that
SCO does not intend for any of these suits to come to trial.
The only trial that as yet has a schedule, AFAIK, is SCO v. IBM, which is not
till April 2005. They may feel there is plenty of time for SCO to find a way
out. It is possible that a hearing on a preliminary injunction might happen
sooner. We can be certain (or at least I think so), that SCO will not file any
such - it would have to reveal too much of it's secret, to date, if it were to
pass the tests for granting a preliminary injunction. I don't know if a US
corporation will file for a _preliminary_ injunction.
A foreign corporation might have better success in their courts (in fact, one
has in Germany) but would likely have no success enforcing it or in a US
court.
Finding a buyer for SCO still seems to be the best explanation for what passes
for a strategy with SCO.
It looks like they may have done enough i-dotting and t-crossing to stave off
the SEC.
I would say the best hope for early restraint of SCO would be the pressure they
might feel if a couple of US State Attorneys-General started proceedings against
them on the basis of how they proceed with the "license program".
td Thomas Downing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 06:13 PM EDT |
A lawer comments on the ramifications of the code snippets shown by SCOG;
http://lamlaw.com/DOJvs
Microsoft/WrapAndFlow.html D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 07:31 PM EDT |
As a strategy, "finding a buyer" was probably the impetus for this whole thing.
They probably figured they'd shake the IBM tree, some coconuts would fall out,
and they would go on their merry way with a nice big bag of money.
The tactical significance of the IBM countersuit is that it makes SCO
radioactive. Anyone purchasing SCO now is signing up to be the "pockets that
will pay" if IBM should win on its trade libel claims. Those appear to be pretty
well-founded. Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 10:52 PM EDT |
I haven't had time today to read all the comments yet, but I will. I did notice
td's input, though, and I've been thinking along similar lines about the AGs,
although it seems premature. Anyway, thanks for your input from
a business angle. It helped me think, and now I believe I have it figured out
and will go write something.
If anyone would be willing to explain to a nonprogrammer the BitKeeper evidence,
I'd appreciate it. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 19 2003 @ 11:32 PM EDT |
Could SCO be pushing this licensing thing heavily in order to gain paper
legitimacy?
I don't know the legal terminology - Is there some sense in which, if SCO sells
say 300 licenses, a court will be more willing to listen/give more weight to
SCO's claims?
IOW, If SCO comes into court waving 300 contracts with some large corporations,
will that sway a judge to give SCO's claims more of a benefit of the doubt than
otherwise? Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:21 AM EDT |
So if you want to show that the code really doesn't belong to SCO, all you have
to do is a search
on Google. Hey, that is easy, I am not a programer and even I could do
that.
Of course, SCO claims millions of lines of code, but that just means somebody
has to write a script.
I can see it now. The judge in one of the trials orders SCO to hand the code
over to the other side.
They in turn give it to a 14 year old computer geek, who comes back in half an
hour with the
job completely done. The trial is over, and somebody uses this as an example in
a book on how to
use Google to aid court trials. david l.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|