Settling SCOres 460
Israel Pattison writes "The Inquirer is reporting that someone in Germany is claiming to have viewed the SCO-alleged infringing Linux source code without having to sign a NDA. The person gives details about the code that was presented, but the translation-by-software is difficult to follow." The story also includes a link to a human translation; maybe some Slashdot reader can do better. Also in the news is a story about a kernel developer getting uppity with SCO, as well he might.
There isn't much left of this dead horse (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet we have NO NEW INFORMATION ABOUT ANYTHING PERTINENT.
The new information we have is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now if someone can recall some of the strings that they saw and grep the kernel for them we can probably have a little chapter-and-verse from which to answer some of SCO's whining directly.
We have made progress against this stupidity, even if it's not as rapid or dramatic as you'd hoped. It'll be interesting to see how the threat of a countersuit impacts SCO's shares when the less technical sites pick it up.
I fail to understand (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I fail to understand (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I fail to understand (Score:3, Interesting)
This is very interesting.
Notice how quite IBM is being in their legal case. Contrast with SCO which is making as much noise as possible. All of the press, the hourly soap opera updates, are all either from third parties, or from SCO. Not from IBM. In other words, SCO is playing this for PR.
Since when does a company involved in litigation show their evidence under NDA?
Hey, I'm suing CompanyX! But I'll show my case, secretly under ND
SCO is so stupid (Score:3, Funny)
erm wait.....1.5 billion.....we are worth 200 million if we throw in the coffie pot...shit were dead.
Where on earth did they get. . . (Score:5, Funny)
KFG
Re:Where on earth did they get. . . (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps (Score:2, Funny)
I'm getting sick of this SCO BS... (Score:3, Insightful)
Puns (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe this should be a slashdot poll:
SCO wrapup story titles should be:
- Puns
- Ambiguous and forgettable
- Unsuccessful and forgettable attempts to sumamrize all 19 links in four words
- Serial numbers
- Randomly and uniquiely generated for SCO stories on each pageoad based on a markov chain algorithm
- All titled "cowboyneal"
- still terrified still anonymousRe:Puns (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Puns (Score:3)
Unfortunately, they've hardly taken advantage of the SCO comedy: SCO, the New Disease [bbspot.com]. I expected more.
Yes, that's what we've been missing! (Score:5, Funny)
Anyway, you've got to love a publication that tells you, "Here's a machine translation (containing lines like "In the concrete implementation there are not however so many differences that a proof of the same origin will become difficult, although reliably not possibly.") and, oh, there's also a human translation, too."
SCO code =Bad chop job? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SCO code =Bad chop job? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:SCO code =Bad chop job? (Score:5, Informative)
> which are not part of the actual operating code,
> form a more significant part of the source than
> the actual code?
The judge in the USL-BSD case ruled that similar or identical comments don't count since they are not functional. That precedent will count against SCO.
Re:SCO code =Bad chop job? (Score:5, Funny)
Except for members of the opposit sex.
What ever happened to "Real programers don't comment code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to read and even harder to fix."?
Re:SCO code =Bad chop job? (Score:5, Funny)
I never WRITE comments as such, I extract previosuly used ones from Unixware and fit them into my code as best I can. I thought everyone did that...
Re:SCO code =Bad chop job? (Score:5, Funny)
I stalk the rest.
I comment on all of it..
15-Jun-2003 22:27
I apologize in advance for this one... (Score:5, Funny)
16-Jun-2003 11:05 // Took Mary Jane to the vet for her annual check-up. I hope the doc can't tell.
Re:Great if thats true! (Score:3, Interesting)
This means SCO is in some serious shit if they testify under oath!
Bring it on SCO. I dare you!
My guess is IBM wants to take them to court and prove they perjured themselve
Re:SCO code =Bad chop job? (Score:5, Funny)
Comments in haiku
Not for any good reason
I was simply bored
*/
Re:SCO code =Bad chop job? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's all you need to get /.'ed now, right?
Line numbers please? (Score:5, Interesting)
From there, I would imagine that Linus has extensive records on where particular kernel submissions came from. That leads to affidavits to the effect that the code was an original work, or its replacement with code which in fact is an original work. Either of which solves the problem.
Re:Line numbers please? (Score:2)
Linus need not be consulted. In the letter, the writer says that his code is tagged. That should be enough to copyright his work.
Re:Line numbers please? (Score:3, Insightful)
You have nothing against SCO. Hmmm. You don't have a problem with this company, whom Microsoft has a huge interest in now, spreading lies like "The GPL will kill your business! See what these Linux people are doing to us? They'll do it to you too!" You don't
Re:Line numbers please? (Score:5, Interesting)
Its far nastier than that. The GPL insists that if the entire codebase isn't distributed under the GPL then none of it is. If SCO asserts that the GPL doesn't apply to the code in the kernel version of Linux they shipped is not under the GPL then they distributed the kernel without a valid license to do so. That makes them liable for damages to the thousands of authors who contributed code to the Linux kernel. If anyone ever registered one of the kernels with the copyright office then they're also liable for punitive damages to thousands of plaintiffs.
At this point, SCO's damned if they do and damned if they don't. They screwed up bad.
Re:Line numbers please? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would they need to register it? In the UK (and several other countries) you own copyright on anything you create and choose to claim copyright on. Quite a few kernel developers are UK residents (including Alan), and since UK copyright is also valid in the US due to treaties they can sue SCO with no effort.
Re:Line numbers please? (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. That's why its important to know which portion of the code base is at issue. But more important than learning whether the claim is true is fixing it so that even if its true today it ceases to be true tomorrow. That's why its important to track the exact code at issue back to its source -- something I've zero confidence that SCO has accomplished.
I've nothing against SCO until such time as I can deter
Re:Line numbers please? (Score:5, Interesting)
From my understanding, if there was SCO code in there that somebody replaced, they would have had to do it without ANY access to the SCO code at all, in the same way companies like AMD did "clean room" reverse engineering jobs on Intel's chips once upon a time. If a Linux developer at IBM even had access to look at SCO-licensed code (let alone copying and pasting it), IBM would likely be in violation of their license. This is one of the reasons the kernel developers are recommending against signing the NDO to view SCO's code - once you've seen it and know SCO's supposed "trade secrets", you could very well be considered legally incapable of creating functionally equivalent, original code.
please (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares if IBM is in violation of SCO's license? That has nothing to do with IBM contributing to FOSS.
Re:please (Score:3, Interesting)
Legally speaking, I'm not so sure of that. The company I used to work for was recently involved in a lawsuit. A software company that sells a product that we bought the source code to over 20 years ago claimed that we were in violation of our license because we used our knowledge of their software to develop an RFP for a replacement system. There was no
Re:please (Score:5, Informative)
> SCO vs. IBM. SCO wants to revoke IBM's UNIX
> license because they claim IBM copied UNIX code
> into Linux.
So far as I know SCO has not yet formally alleged copyright infringement in their complaint against IBM. I believe that the complaint just alleges that IBM breached its contract with SCO by revealing SCO's trade secrets.
Re:please (Score:5, Funny)
Hah! Speak for yourself. I've got the whole Linux scheduler memorized. I'm working on the character device drivers next. So there!...
sigh... I really need a girl.
Re:Line numbers please? (Score:3, Insightful)
From what I've read, they only have to prove access and "substantial similarity" to the copyrighted code. Clearly IBM had access, so the question is if the code is "substantially similar" whatever that means. Algorithms aren't copyrightable (you'd need a patent), but you'd need a legal way to obtain the algorithm like clean-room reverse engineering. Code fragments, structure (function names, et
Re:Line numbers please? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Line numbers please? (Score:3, Interesting)
I presume that it means, this German guy didn't see the "raw" SCO evidence, but he saw SCO's presentation/interpretation/summary of the "evidence"
My thoughts:
1. Perhaps, he doesn't give file names or line numbers: because he does NOT know what they are
2. Doesn't anybody find it the least bit odd, that a so-called expert, who is supposedly assessing the strength of SCO's evidence, is not shown the "raw" evidence, but some kind of presentation/sum
Re:Line numbers please? (Score:3, Interesting)
As previously seen on Slashdot... (Score:5, Informative)
The translation is quite okay. (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, already? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow, already? (Score:5, Funny)
But it has to be that way 'cause that's how we now measure the lifetime of SCO.
Re:Wow, already? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's like a movie buildup. First you make the audience really hate the bad guy. Then the good guy wins.
This is the best entertainment I've seen in a long time. But it's real life and affects something I care about.
The Trillian Project : Proof of SCO's actions (Score:5, Informative)
The Trillian Project : Proof of SCO's actions
(#36053 by NZheretic in response to Did SCO open Unix source code? (ZDNet).)
So, how did Linux become so capable of scaling beyond the heights of the
old UNIXs. More importantly, who helped put what where?
As with the marketing of cars and TVs, it is the vendor's high end
leading edge models which sells the standard models, from which most of
the sales and profit is made. For the enterprise server market today,
that high end is multi-headed 64bit SMP ( shared memory multiprocessor
) systems, never mind the fact that single 32bit processors provide more
than enough power to do most jobs. For all intensive purposes, it is the
ability of the core OS to scale on 64Bit SMP systems that defines
"enterprise scalability". Other enterprise feature are effectively just
addons, which in the case of Linux, have been freely contributed from
many vendors and developers.
Since version 2.0, Linux was more than just a 32bit x86 operating
system. With the insistence and assistance of John "Maddog" Hall, Linux
was already ported to the 64Bit Alpha processor, which delivered great
performance and stability. Just like the traditional AT&T UNIX source
base, the ownership of the Alpha chipset passed though many hands,
suffering the same fate of a thousand cutbacks. Even Alpha's "native"
OS, VMS, has been ported to Itanium by HP/Compaq.
Since 1997 Intel has been promoting the Itanium line as the inevitable
successor for every other server processor on the market. Despite the
early vaporware status, Intel has been very successful, at least in
terms of marketing. With the exception of it's mainframes systems, even
IBM ships Itanium systems that directly compete with their own Power
processors.
For what The SCO Group has to offer with SCO Unixware 7,the Itanium line
is the only 64Bit option. The problem for The SCO Group is that modern
Linux can compete so well in that same market, that the value of
Unixware is rapid deteriorating to a historical curiosity. I suspect
that The SCO Group ( at that time called Caldera ) executives were well
aware of this before they acquired the server part of Old SCO in August
2000, or they would have known, if they spoken to the right executives
and technical staff.
So how did Linux get scale on Itanium? The SCO Group would have you
believe it was all IBM's doing, which isn't as interesting as the real
story. The web of history weaves to encircle and entangle a much more
diverse group of conspirators, including many of The SCO Group, Caldera
and old SCO own former executives and other employees.
In October 1998, IBM, Old SCO and Sequent teamed up to
collectively develop parts of Unixware and AIX into scalable 64bit ready
ports for IBM's Power processors and Intel's AI64, or Itanium, under the
banner of Project Monterey. But by then, it was already too late.
In February 1998, well before even the first prototype IA-64 chips were
available, a skunkworks team at HP, with some assistance from Intel,
began the work toward porting Linux to IA-64. By October 1998,around the
same time that IBM, Old SCO and Sequent had finished negotiations, HP
had completed the build toolchain. By January 1999, the Linux kernel was
booting on an IA-64 processor simulator, months before the actual
Itanium processor was available. In March 1999, at Intel, Linux was
booting on the actual Intel Itanium processor. In April 1999, CERN
joined the projects for the port of the Gnu C library and VA Linux
Systems joined the project and rapidly improved the stability and
performance.
In May 1999, the Trillian Project is foundered and HP, VA Linux and
Intel collectively provided their source patches to the Linux kernel for
the Itanium port under the GPL license.
A bootable kernel alone however does not make an OS make. HP supplied
Linus' stuff? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that Linus "wrote" this; this is kernel stuff, right?
Re:Linus' stuff? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Linus' stuff? (Score:5, Funny)
Hello, my name is Ingo Molnar. You stole my sched.c source code. Prepare to die.
Damn I'm lame.
Re:Linus' stuff? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm also under the impression that the `traditional' linux scheduler (before the rewrite by Ingo Molnar in 2.5) is one of the oldest parts of linux, predating any involvement by IBM or any other large company with access to SCO source. [but this is just my impression from reading the LKML, not based on any research!]
Because the mechanisms involved are fairly implementation-specific, it's also very unlikely that anyone could just copy a few random functions from SCO, unless they were very generic. Since SCO is by all accounts very old and crufty, it's unlikely you'd even want to.
By far the most likely place for copied code is in obscure device drivers that no one really looks at or understands very well besides the original author.
Of course what we really want to hear is the name of these functions! C'mon non-NDA guy, cough 'em up!
Re:Linus' stuff? (Score:3, Interesting)
I do agree that it's so unlikely that it's not even worth considering..
Re:Linus' stuff? (Score:5, Interesting)
Something like an example from an Operating Systems 101 textbook... The natural starting place to write something like that. Both author's could've tossed in explanation from the same original source matter.
Also, the scheduler is part of what makes Unix what it is- a multitasking, process-switched operating system. If several people want to implement that feature, they'll all have a very similar thought pattern, and converge towards a similar solution.
Re:Linus' stuff? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Linus' stuff? (Score:4, Informative)
Linus used Maurice J. Bach's "The Design of the UNIX Operating System." Perhaps the comments and functions were taken from that book?
You can see the code too ! (Score:5, Funny)
Give yourself a few days to read the whole kernel source code and have your ass sued by SCO for having read their source code without NDA.
Re:You can see the code too ! (Score:2, Informative)
(Usual disclaimer applies; IANAL and my law-classes were a while ago).
Re:You can see the code too ! (Score:3, Informative)
Someone else pointed out that a serious developer will not jeopardize his/her career by signing an NDA. Well said. Nevertheless there is another post where the idea that the NDE is rather meaningless is put forth. This is simply not true. When anyone signs an NDA they open them up to litigation. It is quite trivial to accuse someone o
translation (Score:5, Funny)
what code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what code? (Score:3, Interesting)
What use are vague references to jokes in comments? Tell the line numbers so that we can know for certain whether or not the code being shown comes from a questionable source.
If this story is true and someone did see SCO's code without a NDA then they're wasting the chance they've been given to cite some concrete examples of what SCO is claiming.
Since the author elected to provide the same sort of wi
Come on, how about some function names? (Score:2, Interesting)
How difficult is it to say: function foo() in Linux is the same as bar() in SCO code? Duh! Give me a break.
This looks more and more like a bad soap opera.
Better luck next time.
Class Action - SCOX to 0.02, acquisition? (Score:2)
If all Linux kernel copyright holders (or most) do what this German fellow did, but formed a class action (or several, in each country), SCOX stock price would drop like a stone. It would make SCO a more palatable acquisition target for IBM, but not at a price that makes this strategy threats of men with badges and guns enfocing the a worthy exit for stockholders. This would rid the world of SCO, but in a way that would not validate the
Why play by their rules? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it just me (Score:2)
O.J? (Score:5, Funny)
(No lame glove references please.)
Re:O.J? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:O.J? (Score:4, Funny)
Fair enough.
"If our code's in it, you can't acquit".
"No SCO IP unless you pay the fee".
"Computers running stolen code will cost you another $50 per node".
UNIX and derivatives (Score:5, Interesting)
According to McBride's public statements, SCO view all the *nix variants as derivatives of their stuff. If anybody is interested enough to discuss this, but doesn't remember, I'll locate the news links and post them.
However as far as IBM is concerned: IBM are fully authorized in their contract to create derivatives of *nix - use any methods in the source - sublicense it as they choose - and what's more the contract says IBM own any derivative products that they create. The only proviso appears to be IBM should not copy code or whatever associated paperwork came with it (copying ideas and methods is explicitly allowed).
Furthermore, it actually explicitly says this on SCO's own web site, and as part of SCO's evidence. Go, for example, to top of page 2: http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf [sco.com]
So now, I think, we have yet another problem with SCO's case (aside from GPL issue, ATT v BSD issue, whether code was copied from or to SCO, whether SCO have the copyrights, whether anything in *nix is a trade secret given it's history, BSD contamination in *nix history undermining any copyright claim to entire *nix source, etc): Namely IBM are allowed to do more or less whatever they like in and with derivative UNIX products, explicitly stated in the contracts with ATT (which SCO inherited).
Novell's claim? (Score:2, Informative)
Does anyone know what to make of this? Does it bolster SCO's case? Those documents that the paralegal 'found' couldn't be forged, right?
Summary (Score:5, Informative)
-2 sections of code looked very similar
-The rest was mostly copied comments, including jokes that were copied.
-Observer found it curious that the source code near the copied comments was completely different.
Things that make you go "Hmmm... BULLSHIT!" (Score:3, Interesting)
Can somebody say "troll"? (Probably some teenage Windozer having a good laugh.)
Kettenabfrage, Bitmuster (Score:2)
Some possible translations of the German programming terms
Kettenabfrage (chained conditions?) sounds like switch statements.
Bitmuster (bit patterns ?) sounds like bitmasks
If I understand the translated atricle correctly.. (Score:2)
Revised scheduler functions.
Revised memory management routine.
SCO fsck yourself. (Score:5, Insightful)
Did I read in that English translation that all date and time info was removed from the code that was shown, and that the Linux code presented was taken from MAILING LIST POSTINGS? Assumng this isn't some hoax, I smell the very, very pungant odor of bullshit...
Re:SCO fsck yourself. (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps they'll be presenting more detailed evidence in court...or perhaps they're busy researching proper dates to fill their changelogs with?
The thing that gets me is the part about comments, including programmers' jokes, matching verbatim; yet the lines of code they where attached too where substantially different in most cases. Again, this could mean improper reverse-engeneering technique on the part of a Linux contributor (a simple open file and re-write the code as you go), but if this where true, wouldn't the comments be erased with the code you're attempting to emulate? Why would you leave the exact comments there? If you where re-writing the code, why would you type a line of code and then copy the comments from the old code but erase the code itself? The only possible answer is sabotage, and I wouldn't rule that out, either.
However, I'm thinking the popular
<DRAMATIZATION></DRAMATIZATION>
Either way, I don't think SCO would have enough feet to shoot itself in if it was a centipede. Time will tell, but that might not be nessisary.
(PS: Pardon if my pointer arithmetic code isn't syntactically sound...it's been a long time since I've written any code D-: )
clueless or caseless (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO claiming another's kernel code (Score:3, Interesting)
This may be one of the ways to put chinks in SCOs armor. Get other Linux kernel developers to compare what they've written against corresponding sections of OpenLinux. Then note SCO's violations.
Re:SCO claiming another's kernel code (Score:3, Insightful)
consider this,
1. SCO distributed GPL'ed software, ie Linux
2. SCO claims that IBM Illegaly transfered IP into Linux.
3. SCO continues to distribute LINUX after allegedly discovery of non-GPLed code contamination Linux, a violation of the GPL and an infingement of the linux code copywrite owners rights.
4. the only possible defense against an infringement suit from the kernel developers would be to say they were mistake about IBM's inclusion of SCO's IP into Linux,
Did you read the same link I did? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't the case. SCO hasn't even publically stated which parts of Linux are supposedly in violation, they have just stated that there's some violation(s) in the kernel. The developer in the second link doesn't claim to have authored code that SCO has claimed to be copied; he claims to be a co-author of the Linux kernel, which SCO is still distributing.
His remark in short is "The violation is yours, 'cause I wrote the code".
No, his remark is: "If you won't release every part of this binary I am coauthor of under the GPL, then you are redistributing my code without adhering to my license on it, and you are violating my copyright." This doesn't necessarily even mean that SCO's plagarism claims are false, only that if they pursue those claims then they have themselves been unknowingly violating Linux developers' copyrights for years and are knowingly doing so at this minute.
In a challenge to SCO, he's threatening to sue SCO unless they remove the paticular code sections from their list of copyright violations.
No, he's threatening to sue SCO unless they "retroactively" make their distribution of Linux compatible with the GPL (which, if any kernel code has been copied from SCO, would require SCO to license it under the GPL).
Gutsfull (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly OSS is the only point of sanity and some morality left to the industry (I can't quite believe that the IBM of the 70s and 80s is suddenly transposed itself to that touchstone).
Phew, its off my chest, quick, mod me down.
Re:Gutsfull (Score:4, Insightful)
They haven't, not one bit. It is just business for IBM. They made a business decision that making the OS a commodity would be good for them. They see it as a way to knock Microsoft off their revenue base and to similarly make the hundreds of millions if not billions invested in Solaris, HPUX, IRIX and even SCO as moot. Yeah, it hurts them in short run with the waste of their AIX development dollars, but AIX was always an also-ran in the unix space and IBM is a hardware and services company and Linux is the perfect complement to that business model.
But don't ever forget that IBM is first and foremost a ruthless, amoral business just as it has always been, Microsoft is, HP has become and Sun wants to be. If management decided that fighting linux instead of supporting it would benefit their corporate coffers, you can bet that IBM would turn on OSS in an instant.
GPL question (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if they think it's their code, if they downloaded the Linux source to get their copy, they are bound by the GPL just like the rest of us.
I think. IANAL and such. Anyone?
Re:GPL question (Score:3, Interesting)
However, three matters apply here. Firstly, SCO claim that it is thier code, which means that if they are correct, it is not GPL. This complicates things, and I don't know USA law well enough to say what that means.
Secondly, SCO are not distributing the Linux code, but rather pointing to parts of that that have special relevence. They did not give out copies, but rather pointed to a single printout. Thus, no distribution was taking place.
Thirdly, and I think, strongest - F
Nonsense (Score:4, Interesting)
As long as there are no original sources available where nothing is altered or deleted - especially the dates - and as long as SCO does not give any evidence that the sources under scrutiny are unaltered, all there allegations are simply said bullshit.
I think at least in Germany they can be sued for misuse of the court and up to now they can be sued for damaging IBM and everybody who sells and supports LINUX.
Well - let us sue them into oblivion
CU
I Have To Agree With Some Points Made Here (Score:5, Interesting)
2) He says some of the comments are identical but the code next to them ISN'T. This makes no sense unless SCO manipulated the comments. But why would SCO place identical comments next to non-identical code? Isn't that an OBVIOUS fake? Why would SCO do an OBVIOUS fake? Are they that stupid? Or was it an attempt to show fake code to analysts that will NOT be shown to the court - in other words, a publicity stunt?
3) This story doesn't resolve anything or even contribute to anything given its omissions and ambiguity.
SCO's real objection (Score:5, Funny)
Our primary means of revenue is licensing of our source code. The jokes are the only significant value of this source. As events of the last few months have shown, ridicule and laughter are what makes our company great. By shamefully incorporating the jokes into an open source product, IBM has removed the only rational reason why anyone would pay to license our IP. Our copying of large sections of the Linux code into our own products is irrelevent to the discussion because we deliberately removed any good jokes in the process.
Start d/l *BSD? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying we should be throwing in the towel just yet, but SCO sure has managed to knee linux right in the enterprise stomach and seems to be digging in for a long fight.
I know that this has severely hurt the chances of getting linux in my Fortune 100 company, no matter who the vendor is (HPaQ, Sun, IBM...it won't matter how many or few letters they have in their name). Linux - even if vindicated - will be relegated to niche apps (probably embedded appliances) and the chances of finally getting open source projects brought in will be even slimmer than they are now.
SCO hurt themselves and damaged the entire linux/open source community with this money-grab. I will take great pleasure in dancing on SCO's grave and will be one of the first persons making bids on their equipment when it's put up for auction.
Can you remember 5 lines of code? (Score:3, Insightful)
Once I'd found the real author of the code, I'd notify him, and watch the fun as he tries to sign the NDA. It'd get real entertaining real fast.
Seconded! (-: (Score:3, Interesting)
Legally interesting...
Since SCO did not disclose that author's name to you, it can't be covered by their NDA - true/false?
How much could you tell the developer about the code you had seen before their NDA bit you? Since SCO did not supply filenames and line numbers to you, their NDA does not cover you giving him file and line - true/false?
English translation (by hand) (Score:5, Informative)
THIS IS ONLY A WORKING TRANSLATION; I DO NOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AS TO POSSIBLE MISTAKES OR ERRORS. I WILL NOT TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY CONCERNING THE CONTENT OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT.
Today, I had the possibility to have a look at the incriminating code passages.
Due to a mistake on the part of the representing lawyer's office, my colleague and I - as opposed to the 7 other representatives that were allowed to look at things today - did not have to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement. This was in full contrast to the examiners of Microsoft corp., who apparently had to maintain silence even towards their own superiors and may only give notice to the internal company audit department.
Now for the code itself:
Under the supervision of a notary public, 46 pages were shown, each containing, by one half, code from Linux (for the most part, print-outs of posts taken directly from the Linux-Kernel-Mailing List) and, by the other half, listings of SCO. Whether these are indeed sources of SysV is not comprehensible that way, as they are taken out of their context. Another interesting thing is that all date and time details have been removed from both, even from the comments. The comments themselves are really identical here and there, even some jokes are the same on both sides. It is, however, conspicuous that in the places that correspond most, the source code that can be found in front of the comments is quite dissimilar after all. The fundamental construction of the queried functions is similar; however, the concrete implementation is quite different. Variables and names of functions are different, loops are structured differently, conditions work via chain queries (?) (Kettenabfrage) or bit patterns (?) (Bitmuster). All in all, only one thing can be said for certain: The functions offered by the respective code passages are often equal, which, however, was to be expected from the start anyway.
In the concrete implementation, there are, however, so many differences, that a proof of the origin being the same will be difficult, even though certainly not impossible.
The crunch, however, is a function of the scheduler, which is, over a length of about 60 lines, indeed identical except for slight differences. In this section, there is also a whole lot of corresponding comments.
Comparable similarity can only be found in one routine of the memory management, which is, however, only in the Linux version accompanied by comments.
Whether a competent proof can be made out of these two correspondences can only be estimated with certainty by a lawyer. I consider the vague similarities in other passages to be insufficient, as the same standards were the basis for both and therefore, a certain correspondence is to be expected.
Concerning the same comments to different source passages, I can see no rhyme or reason in it. This would in any case have to be investigated in again meticulously, in particular with the date and time details provided. Because only with these could a breach of copyright be proved at all.
Concerning the discussion about the part of Linux sold under the GPL by SCO/Caldera, it must be stated that up to the present, no court has had to decide on the legal validity of the GPL. Should this, however, be ascertained, which is not certain, SCO can use only those parts of Linux by way of comparison that were not published by SCO and in the development or co-development SCO did not take part. I consider this, too, a difficulty in the proceedings to come.
As the original, unpatched Linux-sources were not touched but only modifications that had been inserted by different distributors, it has to be clarified in any case whether these might have rights to the queried passages, be it directly or indirectly, e.g. through company mergers, take-overs, "all-inclusive"-deals etc. The chances for proceedings to open are not especially good, as in most comparable
Comments from POSIX (Score:5, Interesting)
It makes a lot of sense for a developer to copy the specification as comments and fill it up with implementation details. That's the way I would do it! That would explain why comments are the same and code is different.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nice turnabout for SCO, but... (Score:2)
Thats the problem, some do like the word lawsuit.
Here's my attempt (Score:4, Interesting)
Here 'tis:
I make alternators, you make engines, leroy over there makes wheels, bubba makes frames and bodies and etc. Now we could all sit around and try to sell this stuff to each other with all sorts of schemes and deals and middlemen and whatnot, or we could all just cooperate completely and share a part with each other and all of us wind up with a pretty cool and snazzy complete car at very little cost to anyone. Then we *all* have our own good car to go drive to "real work" in. And whenever I build a newer better alternator I chip it in, and so does the engine guy, and so on. We do this forever, we are always driving a new car for real reasonable and not much hassle. And once in awhile someone totally new joins our car co-op group, like the new guy this week we added has a really nice car sound system we all get to add to our cars. Cool beans. Fat city.
Re:Wasting bandwidth - execute our GNU rights! (Score:2)
fud.msnbc.com (Score:3, Informative)
Are Linux terrorists and hippies worse than Windows terrorists and hippies? I don't get it.
Microsoft co-owns a cable TV news channel [msnbc.com]. Linux.org doesn't. Microsoft reserves the right to misrepresent anything related to Linux on MSNBC so far as it doesn't cross the line of slander.
Exactly. (Score:2, Funny)
Short sell SCO's stock instead.
Re:grep sco /usr/share/dict/words (Score:5, Funny)
Re:my /usr/share/dict/words is bigger ! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:mirror (Score:4, Insightful)
The code now, or as submitted, is unimportant. The fact that the work derived from (else why would the original and seemingly unique comments be there) copyright material is enough.
I haven't seen the SCO code, nor do I care to. But, I have first hand seen a similar case that was won based on the comments in the code.
From the case; "It is the resemblances in inessentials, the small, redundant, even mistaken elements of the copyright work which carry the greatest weight. This is because they are the least likely to have been the result of independent design."
And; "Trivial items may well provide the most eloquent testimony"
And finally; "Both suites of programs
contained the same spelling mistakes in the comment lines and the same redundant code. The
judge did not accept the argument that this was due to programming style."
Re:Punctuation (Score:3, Informative)
As I understand it, ``SCO'' is no longer an acronym meaning S anta C ruz O peration but a made-up word -- like ``Agilent'' and others, I guess -- that's pronounced ``skoe''. That would explain the lack of periods. I heard that they initially fought the pronunciation thing but eventually decided to quit while they were ahead. (Pity they can't see the light in this lawsuit, eh?)