Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Unix Operating Systems Software Caldera Linux

SGI Compares Linux & System V Source Code 406

Posted by simoniker from the one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other dept.
mrgoatCEO writes "It seems SGI has finished up their test comparing SCO's Unix System V code and that of the Linux Kernel, according to ITWorld. SGI found that any similarities between the systems (amounting to only about 200 lines of code) have been removed in Linux Kernel 2.4.22, and added that the similarities were 'trivial in amount.'" This follows moves by SCO to terminate SGI's Unix license.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SGI Compares Linux & System V Source Code More

SGI Compares Linux & System V Source Code

Comments Filter:

  • reminder about shares (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Neophytus ( 642863 ) * on Monday October 06, 2003 @01:49PM (#7145309)
    Keep a watch on those stock prices [yahoo.com] and insider trades [yahoo.com]. Its not like they are even trying to hide it any more.
    • The top dogs are set to make a fortune off of this whole fiasco. I sure hope that SOMEBODY in the SEC is watching.

    • Re:reminder about shares (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PowerBert ( 265553 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @01:55PM (#7145363) Homepage
      The writing is on the wall.
      They're not just dumping stock. According to El Reg they dropped a reseller of 30 years [theregister.co.uk] today.

      • Re:reminder about shares (Score:5, Informative)

        by FuzzyBad-Mofo ( 184327 ) <fuzzybad@nOSPAm.gmail.com> on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:16PM (#7145588)

        "Monninkhof tried to reason with SCO, but didn't succeed. At first SCO agreed to talk, so Monninkhof flew to SCO's headquarters in Utah, but learned that there was no-one to meet him and that visitors were not allowed in the building. Security then escorted Monninkhof off the premises. He was also given a letter indicating that his company was no longer welcome at SCO Forum."

        If there was any doubt about the kind of people running SCO these days, this should clinch it. Damn cold..

        • Re:reminder about shares (Score:5, Funny)

          by Chicane-UK ( 455253 ) <chicane-uk@@@ntlworld...com> on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:18PM (#7145614) Homepage
          Heh.. it wasn't that SCO didn't want to meet him.. its just that their entire company now consists of lawyers, and the upper upper management. They were all too busy preparing press releases and law suits to come down and meet him ;)

          • Re:reminder about shares (Score:4, Insightful)

            by southpolesammy ( 150094 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:36PM (#7145771) Journal
            You know, in certain circles, this is intolerably rude. This guy flew halfway around the world to meet with a long-time partner, and their response was to blow him off? At least SCO should have offered him the courtesy of a polite "thanks for coming, but our business is concluded" type of face-to-face response. But instead, they've burned yet another bridge.

            You'd think that with so few "friends", SCO would at least want to keep from turning such people into enemies.

            Of course, there's always one other possible reason -- SCO's headquarters are empty. No one resides there, and in fact, The SCO Group is the shill for The Canopy Group that we all believe it to be. That would explain why no one came to greet him -- no one was there.

            Anyone in Utah care to help out a do a little legwork for us?

            • Re:reminder about shares (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 06, 2003 @05:08PM (#7147363)
              well i happened to have the misfortune of being there two weeks ago.

              I was visiting another company and happened to to walk into there building by mistake.

              Security?? I didnt see any, rather attractive young girl on reception though who didnt seem to know much. I asked for the person i was supposed to be seeing and it took her about 10mins to release they had no one by that name or dept working there.

              Whole building had a really cold dead empty feel to it. On the way out i noticed people coming and going by the side exist loading bucket loads of hardware into (pcs, printers, etc...) into peoples car. Odd i thought.

              Wasnt until i left the meeting i was supposed to be at that i saw the big SCO letter above the building i went to originally!!!

              Anyway from the way people where loading up there cars with hardware it definatly had sinking ship look about it with people grabbing what they could now.

          • Re:reminder about shares (Score:5, Funny)

            by antibryce ( 124264 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @03:08PM (#7146069)
            They were all too busy preparing press releases and law suits to come down and meet him ;)


            Given the general spiritual realm I'm sure we all agree lawyers and marketing folks hail from, shouldn't that be "come up and meet him"?

    • Those insider sales strongly remind me of how rats jump off a sinking ship..

    • Re:reminder about shares (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ark42 ( 522144 ) <slashdot@@@morpheussoftware...net> on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:27PM (#7145687) Homepage

      For the lazy, since June 20 it looks like they have sold shares for a total amount of $2,747,819

    • According to the link, net insider sales in the last six months of SCO have been 2.1%. The corresponding numbers for VA Software (LNUX - owner of Slashdot) was 24.4% and for Red Hat (RHAT)19.7%.

      If insider sales at SCO are predicting something, what does it mean that the insider sales of LNUX and RHAT are an order of magnitude larger?

    • Re:reminder about shares (Score:4, Funny)

      by ErikJson ( 27997 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @03:23PM (#7146215)
      This looks funny [yahoo.com]
      19-Aug-03 BROUGHTON, REGINALD CHARLES Employee
      19-Aug-03 BROUGHTON, REGINALD CHARLES Senior Vice President

      26-Aug-03 BROUGHTON, REGINALD CHARLES Senior Vice President
      2-Sep-03 BROUGHTON, REGINALD CHARLES Employee

      11-Sep-03 OLSON, MICHAEL P Vice President
      11-Sep-03 OLSON, MICHAEL P Controller

      Darl: "Ok, now it's your turn to be Vice president. "
      Michael: "Come on! Again? I did that last week!"
      Darl: "There are only five of us eft here, remember?"

  • *gasp* (Score:2, Redundant)

    by Nykon ( 304003 )
    No suprise here. We all know that SCO is on a witch hunt, the question that still confuses me is WHY?

    • Re:*gasp* (Score:5, Insightful)

      by overbyj ( 696078 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @01:56PM (#7145367)
      I am really starting to believe the theory put out earlier that this is a a real pump and dump scheme. In Darl's contract, it states that he is in for a big payday if there are four consecutive quarters of profitability. The four quarters are over in February which conveniently is the time the IBM countersuit is supposed to get going again after the continuance.

      As much as this whole fiasco sucks, you have to give Darl credit for being a master at pump and dump here if this is the case. Come February, I would not be surprised in the least bit if there is a sudden resignation by him and he relocates to somewhere in the south Pacific or Carribean.

      • Bank Robbers (Score:5, Insightful)

        by blunte ( 183182 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:11PM (#7145538)
        Bank robbers nowdays, if they manage to get out of the bank with some money, almost always get caught.

        I always think, "Wow! Who would be stupid enough to try to rob a bank anymore?"

        Darl and his gang are simply pulling the stock market equivalent to robbing a bank. They'll make off with some money, but shortly afterward they'll get reeled in.

        SCOX will get slammed once the clue hits the fan for the public here in a few months. Unlike Darl's Ikon lawsuit, which was an altogether different theft than this one, this robbery is right out in public view, and it's not going to go unnoticed.

        Once the party is over and the SCOX investor dupes have lost their money, there will be shareholder suits against Darl and other executive and members of the board. There will be SEC investigations (that should have already begun, but public outcry haven't forced yet).

        The good news for Darl, I guess, is that he'll manage to stash some of the loot for safe keeping, and the business world will forgive him so he can pull another stunt someday in the future.

        We can only hope that he's barred from becoming an executive or board member of a publicly traded company in the future.

      • Re:*gasp* (Score:3, Insightful)

        by niko9 ( 315647 )
        you have to give Darl credit for being a master at pump and dump here if this is the case

        That's like giving credit to Hannibal Lecter for disposing of his victims in a most elegant manner that had anyting to do with fava beans.

        Let's just call him a common criminal and call it a day.

        Thanks

      • Dilbert quote: (Score:5, Funny)

        by mike449 ( 238450 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:30PM (#7145716)
        Dogbert: I can't tell you my plans for the assets of this company...but it rhymes with 'village'.

        Dilbert: I hope it's "fillage"...

      • Re:*gasp* (Score:4, Informative)

        by Zathrus ( 232140 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:47PM (#7145878) Homepage
        In Darl's contract, it states that he is in for a big payday if there are four consecutive quarters of profitability.

        Not really. If you want the skinny on the stock options and incentives in Darl's contract, go read this [groklaw.com].

        In short -- Darl got 100,000 options after one year with SCO (which should have been on or about June 27, 2003). There are another 300,000 options that are vesting at a rate of 8333/month for 3 years. If SCO has 4 profitable quarters then Darl gets another 50,000 shared immediately, followed by 150,000 a year later.

        By those numbers, he'd be well advised to keep the company around for at least a year after securing the 4 quarter deal -- he'd nearly double the shares.

        On top of that, executives can't just call their broker and issue a sell order. Any insider must register for the purchase or sale of shares with the SEC. If you look at the execs of any large, successful company you'll see many have share sale orders out months or years in advance -- because they have to rebalance their portfolios.

        I'm not saying this isn't pump 'n' dump or a variation thereof, but it's not as simple as some of the more ignorant /.ers would have you believe.
    • As to why, that's fairly easy. The price of their stock has skyrocketed since they started this fiasco. Stockholders who are selling off stock they bought a year ago are making money hand over fist. If they do eventually prove their case, every single linux supplier would have to either shut down, pay licensing fees , or quickly come up with a SCO-free distribution. It's all "Show me the money", and the longer they can keep the ball in the air, the more money they make.

      Which brings me to my question.

  • the Comparator gets used... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by typobox43 ( 677545 ) <typobox43@gmail.com> on Monday October 06, 2003 @01:54PM (#7145340) Homepage
    ... and it seemed to identify some things. However, as the article says, there is much that could possibly be in the code that violates copyrights that couldn't be picked up by something such as that. Honestly, how do you compare something like that? Sure, you could have a group of real humans compare the code, but that will be subjective... certainly whoever compares it is going to be looking at things from their own point of view. The problem is, there are very few neutral people towards this issue that would know how to compare such a thing. (Arguably, there are just as few on SCO's side :-)

  • SGI calling SCO... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Mr. Flibble ( 12943 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @01:54PM (#7145346) Homepage
    SGI:Hello SCO!
    SCO:Hello.
    SGI:We have just one word for you.
    SCO:And that would be?
    SGI:OWNZOR!!
    SCO:D'oh!

    Note, the above has been checked against the Linux kernel and System V source and it matches neither. (You hear that down there in Salt Lake City?)

  • SCO Response (Score:5, Funny)

    by johnnyb ( 4816 ) <jonathan@bartlettpublishing.com> on Monday October 06, 2003 @01:54PM (#7145349) Homepage
    SCO said that there are still unpatched systems that are running with the "benefit" of those lines of code. Shouldn't that be "weighted down" or "burdened" insetad.?

  • A little more detail please (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OzPhIsH ( 560038 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @01:54PM (#7145352) Journal
    So, SGI has something we've all been wanting access to, essentially the System V Source. They run a check against the Linux kernal for infingement and only tell us a summary of their findings? Why can't they be more specific? Why can't they say lines 100-110 of module X in Y in the linux kernal came up infringing. They don't have to reveal any "sco owned" code, just what is already opened sourced on the Linux side. I'm I missing something?
    • They don't want to tip their entire hand too quickly, and they don't want it biting their stock price (if they still have one) in the ass by inferring that the code is infringing as opposed to is conceivably infringing, making the entire debacle a mea culpa for SGI.

    • Re:A little more detail please (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Interesting quesiton. Let's say you do push the list of infringing lines out .... then the world knows that sco has lines of code that in some sense match those on the list. Thus, the listing of the line numbers is about the same as publishing SCO's code. Kind of like passing a pointer to a private variable is a no-no.

    • Re:A little more detail please (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DrWhizBang ( 5333 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:06PM (#7145472) Homepage Journal
      SGI wants it to be blatantly obvious that they have done nothing to deserve the wrath of SCO. Their approach is differnt than IBM - IBM says "Make my day, SCO. Mess with IBM and feel the hurt!!!". SGI says, "Very sorry, but we don't know what you're talking about. Now please go away?"

      Since SCO is refusing to release that data, SGI does not see any need to - they have clearly washed their hands of the problem, and don't intend to provoke SCO any more than they have to.

      Personally, I am very impressed with SGI's attitude in this whole ordeal - they stay out of it until SCO says something stupid, and then they very matter of factly point out that SCO is wrong, and carry on.
      • I really don't think SGI has anything to lose by telling people just to take a closer look at certain parts of code. SCO has ALREADY revoked SGI's Unix license, what more can they do? There is nothing SCO can do about SGI pointing towards a few sections of linux source with a wink and a nod towards the community.

      • Re:A little more detail please (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Actually, IBM got sued without any prior notice by SCO. For the most part, they've kept quite because any public statements could be used against them in court. Look at IBM's counter claims and you'll see many instances where they are attempting to use SCO's statements against them. This includes statements that SCO has revoked IBM's AIX license even though Novell claims that they have not.

        I'm not saying one is better than the other but I think it's easy to understand where IBM (a conservative company) is
    • I'm not sure to what extent they have or have not done this. I can't fine SGI's original "open letter" anywhere, only this article that slashdot references that in turn talks about and quotes from the letter.

      Anyone have the letter?

      I could not find it on SGI's site.
    • how do you define "infringing" code anyways? Traditional wisdom tells us that if you have a million monkeys with a million computers write a kernel they're going to have some overlapping code.. there are only so many ways to write so many things and even fewer ways to make it optimal so why even worry about it?

      Even if they did come back and found lines 100-200 in some module are similar what can they do to change it? Apart from using a different algorithm if one exists would just changing the code to use d
    • But please remember that matching code is not necessarily infringement. The code could have been copied from the Linux kernel into UNIX. No one knows until it has been proven one way or the other.

  • Good to be kept honest, anyway. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Skyshadow ( 508 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @01:56PM (#7145368) Homepage
    In the final analysis, this whole production might end up being a Good Thing.

    First and foremost, it's good to be kept honest -- having other people's IP slipped into your codebase by well-meaning (or otherwise) people is a risk in all development projects. At least with OSS, a company can find the code and get it removed; someday, this will probably be used by a company acting in good faith (as opposed to SCO).

    Second, it'll be nice to have the GPL tested out in court if for no other reason than the ability to point to it and say "it's been tested, it stands up". Given that a lot of important development in the next 10-15 years will be utilizing the GPL as Free-as-in-Speech products slowly displace proprietary fundementals like operating systems, it's important to the industry in general to work out any "bugs" in the GPL and get a prescident established sooner than later.

    And hey, it'll be nice to see McBride brought up on those fraud charges, too -- you can't defraud your investors like this and expect to skate unless you're buddies with the guy in the White House, after all.

    • Isn't it possible to sue for 0 damages and test out the GPL THAT way?

      Low cost/damaging way to get that out of the way.
      • While technically you could sue for $1 just to get the GPL "tested", I'd prefer to have it actually attacked by people who want to beat it -- how else can you know you can depend on it?

        The best way to evaluate anything is to put it up against real honest competition. Why do you think football teams do real hitting in practice? Why risk having someone get injured when it doesn't count? Because it's the only way to really evaluate how a player is likely to do on the field on Sunday when the games count.

    • I really like your thoughts, but you might be a bit idealistic. Do you really think SCO is going to let this reach the courts? Moreover, this recent development makes it less likely that McBride will face fraud charges. Think about it, the whole idea with fraud is that their claims had no merit. SGI has cleared everything up, but has confirmed that there is System V code in Linux. Even if SCO is eventually torn apart, McBride has a solid defense that there is in fact some of their code in Linux, even if it
      • SGI has cleared everything up, but has confirmed that there is System V code in Linux.

        No, SGI has shown that there is common code between the two. There is still a question of ownership. SCO says they own it, SGI says it might be in the public domain.

    • Re:Good to be kept honest, anyway. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:14PM (#7145572) Homepage Journal
      I don't think they'll get to the GPL issue. It will be like the old ATT case, where the court determined that the plaintiff did not have a valid copyright interest in the code in question, and the case ended there.

      Bruce

    • Re:Good to be kept honest, anyway. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RealAlaskan ( 576404 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:15PM (#7145574) Homepage Journal
      Second, it'll be nice to have the GPL tested out in court if for no other reason than the ability to point to it and say "it's been tested, it stands up".

      That's not going to happen; at least, not with a sane defendent. The GPL doesn't restrict my rights to (for example) the Linux kernel: it adds rights which copyright law would not give me. If I ``defeated'' the GPL in court, I would lose, since I would lose those additional rights. Anyone who considers challenging the GPL will soon find that it's a fight he can't afford to win ... or lose.

      Only an insane party would challenge the GPL under those terms. SCO has talked about it, but they haven't put any of those loony ``legal theories'' in any of their court filings, so far as I know.

      ... it's important to the industry in general to work out any "bugs" in the GPL and get a prescident established sooner than later.

      Well, yes, it is. But we won't be able to do it in court: no one who is compos mentis is going to take us there, or let us drag him there.

      For the tin-foil-hat crowd, Microsoft might gain by eliminating the GPL. The temporary confusion and delay could give them a few months of breathing room. Still, even if they are funding SCO's sillyness, I doubt that ``break the GPL'' is on their list for Santa, let alone a serious plan.

      • Re:Good to be kept honest, anyway. (Score:5, Informative)

        by DaveAtFraud ( 460127 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:56PM (#7145970) Homepage Journal
        That's not going to happen; at least, not with a sane defendent.

        We're talking SCO here; so what's your point?

        On a more serious note, a poster to GROKLAW [groklaw.com] ran across this SCO product brochure [caldera.com] from 2002 which points out that the very features that SCO says infringe on their intellectual property (XFS, JFS, NUMA, etc.) are selling points in SCO's version of Linux. This makes it kind of hard for SCO to claim that they didn't know these features had been included in Linux and their release of the code under the GPL doesn't constitute GPLing the code.

        I could be wrong but this only leaves SCO with three choices:

        1. They can't complain about the features, just individual code fragments. They have just told SGI that fixing the individual code fragments isn't sufficient.
        2. They challenge the GPL.
        3. Drop the suits against IBM and SGI and watch their stock tank.

    • Re:Good to be kept honest, anyway. (Score:5, Funny)

      by bstadil ( 7110 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:22PM (#7145646) Homepage
      At least SCO is not 100% dishonest.

      Take their employment section as an example [btclick.com]

  • Copyright law allows for reasonable copying, e.g., a few pages from a book. So surely 200 lines of code out of millions would simply be laughed out of court?
  • Can someone please tell me what SCO really stands for? No I don't mean their morals, which may appear to some untrained observers as unprincipled extortion. I mean does anyone have any good expansion of the initials SCO?
    • I believe the official expansion is "Santa Cruz Operation".

      I also believe that you probably already know that and are instead fishing for more humorous versions.

      Here are some obvious first attempts to get people going.

      Suing Companies Online
      Stock (manipulation) Capitalization Operation
      Stupid Corporate Officers

    • Re:This rose by any other name would just smell (Score:4, Funny)

      by kasperd ( 592156 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:07PM (#7145485) Homepage Journal
      Can someone please tell me what SCO really stands for?

      Here are a few suggestions I have seen a few times (some of them here on /.):
      • Santa Crux Operation
      • Secret Chimps Organization
      • Smoking Crack Operation
      • Some Corrupt Organisation
      • Structured Computer Organization

    • Shifting names (Score:5, Informative)

      by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:42PM (#7145826) Homepage
      Originally SCO stood for "Santa Cruz Operation".

      Eventually, SCO sold off its OS division, the one that made SCO UNIX and coincidentally happened at the time to own the original Unix copyrights (having bought them from Novell in 1995), to Caldera [caldera.com], a linux company. The remainder of what used to be SCO, the part Caldera didn't buy, is still operating under the name Tarantella. [tarantella.com]

      Caldera, after buying SCO UNIX, changed its name to "The SCO Group." SCO doesn't stand for anything here. It's just "The SCO Group". Shortly after this the company's co-founder, Ransom Love, was replaced as CEO by Darl McBride, and SCO began to serve the Wyrm.

      "The SCO Group" is owned by and has since Caldera's inception basically been under the auspices of an umbrella corporation called the Canopy Group [google.com]. It has been repeatedly theorized that somewhere about the time McBride came in, the Canopy Group gave up on ever making any money ever again on Caldera's projects. Now, goes the theory, the Canopy Group is using the SCO group for no purpose other than as a front/shell company, so that the Canopy Group can engage in illegal but profitable enterprises such as slander, barratry, and fraud, and then when all hell breaks loose as a result and the countersuits start rolling in, "the SCO Group" gets all the blame and takes all the damage and quietly goes bankrupt, and the Canopy Group walks away scot-free.

  • Run Comparator against BSD now (Score:5, Interesting)

    by surfinbox ( 602851 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @01:57PM (#7145381) Homepage Journal
    "This comparison revealed a few examples of line-by-line copying, but did not determine whether the code was owned by SCO or in the public domain."
    If Comparator were run against the appropriate *BSD (AT&T public source, right?) I wonder how many of offending script segments would be taken as not SCO's/SysV.
    • Took the words out of my mouth.

      I think it should be worth the community to ask SGI to do this and more specifically to do it versus a BSD version that is old enough to suggest a theft by SCO and not vice versa. Alternatively, SysV licensees are well known so we might as well ask every single one of them.

  • Dear SCO (Score:3, Funny)

    by CyberGarp ( 242942 ) <Shawn AT Garbett DOT org> on Monday October 06, 2003 @01:57PM (#7145383) Homepage

    We here have reviewed you claims and have come to the following conclusions:

    1. We own the code we wrote. Sorry, we got dibs on it. Thank you for your interest.
    2. We can do with our own code as we please.
    3. Now would you kindly bend over...

  • Release the sums ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by taniwha ( 70410 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @01:58PM (#7145395) Homepage Journal
    So SGI ran Eric's program that makes MD5 sums from a source file - why not release those sums so people can do independant analysis? (I can just imagine SCO's lawyers reving up ... "your honor it's a derived work", "we own those numbers" ...)
  • SGI found that any similarities between the systems (amounting to only about 200 lines of code) have been removed in Linux Kernel 2.4.22, and added that the similarities were 'trivial in amount.'"
    In a related study, Scientists find that the moon orbits the Earth.

  • Unfortunately.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:01PM (#7145426) Homepage
    Unfortunately SGI is talking only about SGI submitted code:
    • The point of SGI's comparison was to search for any potential matches between Unix System V and any contributions that SGI made to the Linux kernel, not to vet the software for the entire community, Estes said in an interview. "We are not making any kind of representation at all about anybody else's contributed code," he said.
    So SCO could still potentially be right in saying that IBM submitted a lot of Unix code into Linux.

    Curiously, because SGI has access to both codebases, and know how to run the Comparator, SGI probably has a good idea how many non-SGI violations are in the code (eg. the details may be complicated, but surely they can guess within an order of magnitude). So for now, it's IBM and SGI knowing and not telling, SCO knowing and saying as many ludicrous things as possible, and the rest of us left to speculate until this thing goes to court.

    • Re:Unfortunately.... (Score:2, Informative)

      by hattig ( 47930 )
      > So SCO could still potentially be right in saying that IBM submitted
      > a lot of Unix code into Linux.

      That is what SCOs entire case is built upon - their claim that any code put into any form Unix by IBM, SGI, etc, automatically became SCOs property (as far as I know).

      Even though the licence clearly never stated this stuff as far as I am aware. So all the claims by SCO are in bad faith and not valid.

      There is no case for SCO. IBM, etc, are only taking the time to make sure that there are no holes le

    • Re:Unfortunately.... (Score:3, Informative)

      by bluGill ( 862 )

      As I understood it, SGI said they examined all their contributions closely to be sure they didn't accidently put SysV code in Linux. They also did a general check for other problems, but did not put forth the effort to be sure there are no non-SGI violations. If there are SysV copyright violations they are difficult to find though. That implys any violations are just potential because it can be argued the code is dissimilear enough that either it was independantly written and similear on good enginnerin

    • SGI first reviewed its open source contributions earlier this summer, ....

      Then in September SGI carried out its more comprehensive comparison. "SGI continued our investigation to determine whether any other code in the Linux kernel was even conceivably implicated," Altmaier states in the letter.

  • blah blah blah! (Score:2, Informative)

    by XO ( 250276 )

    The fact that SGI has replaced the three code fragments in question does not satisfy SCO, according to Blake Stowell, a SCO spokesman. "These releases have already taken place in Linux," he said. "You still have all these machines out there that haven't applied patches that are still benefitting from this Unix System V code."

    I can't believe that anyone would think that ANY modern system would actually benefit from Unix System V code. Virtually everything can be done better, faster, cheaper, smaller,

    • maybe theres a bunch of i++ statements they're suspicious about.

      Seriously. I should've copyrighted "i++" a long time ago...

  • My Buisness Role Models (Score:2, Insightful)

    by niko9 ( 315647 )
    When I was younger and running my own buisness, my role models for conducting myself were my hard working immigrant parents.

    They were courteous, fair, always did the right thing by the customer, even if it meant being honest and not recommending work that they didn't need.

    The funny thing is, neither was a high school graduate, coming from the farmlands of Greece, nor were they world-cultured, but they were honest.

    It's becoming increasingly difficult to find people in buisness who earn honestly and don't

    • Re:My Buisness Role Models (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Alan Cox ( 27532 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:20PM (#7145630) Homepage
      Its shortermism - everything in the UK and US is driven around short term results. A lot of real smaller business is driven by the long term , and for the long term you build productive relationships instead

      People want short term results from their banks/funds/pensions, so the banks/pensions want the same so the companies get to suffer.

  • Step 1: Create awesome and secure OS
    Step 2: License said OS
    Step 3: Accuse others of license infringement
    Step 4: Profit ... no, wait ... multi-billion dollar loss as a result of "no way in hell are we going to win this" lawsuits ...
    • Step 1: Create awesome and secure OS
      Step 2: License said OS
      Step 3: Accuse others of license infringement
      Step 4: Profit ... no, wait ... multi-billion dollar loss as a result of "no way in hell are we going to win this" lawsuits ...

      So where does SCO fit in? Certainly not at Step 1.

  • Good news for SCO! (Score:3, Funny)

    by hoof ( 448202 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:04PM (#7145454)
    I just called Geico and saved a bundle on my auto insurance!
  • didn't we see this story on friday??

  • Misquoted (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:09PM (#7145519) Journal
    The 200 lines part refers only to SGI's contribution to the Linux kernel. A full (though automatic) comparison found several additional matches, though they decline to specify where and say they haven't investigated the origins of the code snippets to see if any are there illegally. It's understandable that SGI's immediate priority is to defend themselves, and not Linux as a whole.
  • Thanks for the old news. The Linux community has known for quite some time that there's no infringing code in Linux.
    Those who invest in SCO haven't.
    Why does SGI then release open letters addressed to the Linux community while SCO keeps spewing out financial press reports that are actually read by investors?
    I would imagine that SGI had the resources to actually publish a press release while they are at it, but even after exhaustive thinking (I pondered for 37 seconds!) I couldn't come up with a reason wh
  • What I want to know is who is going to pay compensation for the damage don't to Linux and companies with Linux at the heart of their business model.

    Nobody I suppose :|

  • If a SCO tree falls in a forest.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by southpolesammy ( 150094 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:28PM (#7145694) Journal
    So SCO is terminating UNIX licenses left and right, but no one even notices. Can anyone point to any decrease in sales due to this with any affected vendor? Does this amount to the general opinion being set that SCO is now being ignored and good luck with enforcing any such lawsuit?

    Is this meek whimper the final end of SCO?

  • Not That This Matters Any (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ONOIML8 ( 23262 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @02:38PM (#7145801) Homepage
    Some people still don't get it.

    What SGI found makes no difference. In the end it doesn't matter one bit if the Sys V code is the KJV of the holy bible and the Linux code is actually a Monty Python script in chinese.

    None of this matters.

    Why?

    Get it thru your heads people, this is all about stock prices and what the executives can liquidate and move out of the country. They don't give a rats arse about collateral damage and the facts don't have a role in this game.

    I've lived thru this before with Gulf Resources and the Bunker Hill Superfund.....believe me this is no different. It's all about a few people taking the money and laughing their way to some off shore bank.

    Please do not let facts like this SGI thing distract you from the truth. Believe me, SCO isn't.

  • Separate rhetoric and the lawsuit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LightSail ( 682738 ) on Monday October 06, 2003 @03:30PM (#7146306)
    When reviewing the SCO vs. Open Source situation, several elements need to be kept clear. Here are some simple rules:

    1. Classify SCO news as rhetoric or legal. Most press is rhetoric only, very little actual changes to legal situation.

    a. If rhetoric, compare against previous statements to see if new claim or re-hash / forking of previous rhetoric.

    b. If re-hash / forking, compare if clarifies previous rhetoric or obfuscates rhetoric on a subject.

    2. If legal, ask if purpose is to resolve dispute or lengthen proceedings.

    a. If lengthens proceedings, determine if validity vs. delay factor.

    SCO had only nebulous contract claims to derivative works on the thinnest of definitions in its lawsuit. SCO repeatedly blathers on and on over other issues that it has not yet added to the litigation. IBM raised the level of litigation with copyright and patent issues. IBM also raised the General Public License issue.

    SCO has a long history of contentious statements about the GPL while continuing to use it to this very day. SCO showed a detailed knowledge of the GPL. SCO based their IPO on the GPL. SCO released several of their applications under the GPL. SCO still ships a large amount of GPL applications to improve the usability of their UNIX product. SCO cannot separate the validity of the GPL when legally disputing Linux and releasing Samba or any of several GNU applications. SCO cannot re-write their history before a court. Their SEC filings are public record, with the GPL included. It seems impossible for SCO to repudiate the GPL given they still have it as a core part of their business strategy. The actual filing of any attempt to invalidate the GPL would place SCO in direct conflict with all the filings that they made to the SEC. Even a win on a contractual basis would not invalidate the GPL, and SCO cannot hope to mount an effective legal challenge against the GPL.

    SCO will attempt to stay in a high public profile and convert that into stock value for as long as they can. Possibly a buyout offer will come in to end the charade.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson

Close