Although I own hundreds of copyrights, I'm beginning to think that society would be best served if copyright laws were repealed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"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

[ Reply to This | # ]

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

[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.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

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?

[ Reply to This | # ]

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.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[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.]

[ Reply to This | # ]

"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)"

[ Reply to This | # ]

(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)

[ Reply to This | # ]

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.

[ Reply to This | # ]

<tt>* Copyright (c) 1986 Regents of the University of California.</tt>

for the comments in the code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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!

[ Reply to This | # ]

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=16 00684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=29446

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://minni e.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/sys/malloc.c.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

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.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

-- Laura DiDio

http://www.salon.co m/tech/feature/2003/08/18/sco_ibm/

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www .ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0308.2/0791.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

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/

[ Reply to This | # ]

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

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.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"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 ....

[ Reply to This | # ]

4th Berkeley Distribution May 2, 1991 4th Berkeley Distribution

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

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,"

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://perens.com/Articles/ SCOCopiedCode.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://lamlaw.com/DOJvs Microsoft/WrapAndFlow.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

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.

[ Reply to This | # ]

If anyone would be willing to explain to a nonprogrammer the BitKeeper evidence, I'd appreciate it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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?

[ Reply to This | # ]

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.

[ Reply to This | # ]