Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera

Groklaw Traces Contribution of ABIs back to SCO. 611

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the worth-a-read dept.
Ptraci writes "Over at Groklaw they have been doing some digging and have found evidence that old SCO and Caldera did in fact contribute those files that they now want to charge us for."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Groklaw Traces Contribution of ABIs back to SCO.

Comments Filter:
  • by JoeBaldwin (727345) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:24AM (#8143938) Homepage Journal
    Sky reported to be blue after extensive research.
  • by Mod Me God (686647) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:25AM (#8143946)
    ...was under GPL. They will have to disprove that first, which IMHO is he kernel of the case (other than a last-ditch effort to get bought out which seems to have failed).
    • by themightythor (673485) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:40AM (#8144024)
      which IMHO is he (sic) kernel of the case
      *rimshot. He'll be here all week folks.
    • by jrumney (197329) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:41AM (#8144027) Homepage
      The brilliant thing is that Caldera PGP signed the files that they released. So it is going to be extremely hard for SCO to argue that someone else released them, or that they were released by a rogue employee without permission.
      • You can't really expect some PGP thing to hold up in court. Your average judge or juror won't even know what PGP is.
        • by Naikrovek (667) <jjohnson@nospaM.psg.com> on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:58AM (#8144136)
          that's what experts are for. the "average" judge doesn't know ballistics either but ballistics is still a science that judges use daily to convict murderers. because a judge doesn't know about a certain type of proof doesn't make it invalid.
        • by sjames (1099) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @12:51PM (#8144501) Homepage

          You can't really expect some PGP thing to hold up in court. Your average judge or juror won't even know what PGP is.

          If you can clicking 'agree' is enough to enter into a license, surely a PGP signature will do. Equate the two in court and watch MS legal's heads explode as they side with Linux against SCO :-)

        • Actually you can. Quick google will bring up US makes digital signatures legally binding [silicon.com] from Silicon.com in November 1999. Even assuming that the judge is an utter bonehead over four years behind the law, this would be brought up in court.
      • Even if it was done by a rogue employee, doesn't matter. They're still responsible for his actions while he's working for them.
    • by timeOday (582209) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:56AM (#8144120)
      Their contribution was under GPL. They will have to disprove that first, which IMHO is he kernel of the case
      After all these months and hot air, I'm *still* unclear on that point. Some days the case is just a contract dispute between IBM and SCO, other days Daryl is ranting about how the GPL is unconstitutional and we're all commies bent on wrecking capitalism.

      Personally I think SCO's ownership and their backers believe the latter, but could only trump up a quasi-case for the former.

      • Forget what they say in public. Watch what they say to the court. They can get in big trouble if they lie to the court.

        They are probably also in big trouble if their public statements get brought into court, but that's another story.
      • by Krow10 (228527) <cpenning@milo.org> on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:05PM (#8144593) Homepage
        Their contribution was under GPL. They will have to disprove that first, which IMHO is he kernel of the case
        After all these months and hot air, I'm *still* unclear on that point.
        This particular point goes specifically to the claims made in this letter to Unix Licensees [lwn.net] that SCOX sent out a little over a month ago. If SCOX released those into linux under the GPL (and they did,) then they cannot go after *anyone* (including Unix licensees) for using a version of linux with those files without violating the GPL. Additionally, if *they* distribute a version of linux which contains those files (and they do) they are in violation of the copyright of every other contributer to any such linux distribution that they are distributing. Thus, pretty much any recipient of the above linked letter has a pretty good case for telling SCOX to pound sand (after consulting a lawyer to be sure) and IBM has a damned good case in their copyright countersuit. By pointing to the letter, and to the GPL ABI release by SCOX and then pointing to any linux distribution from SCOX's site in the recent past (and there have been plenty right up until 1/25 -- but oddly various locations keep disappearing with each DDoS) IBM can show good evidence that SCOX tried to sublicense linux (the letter) for containing something that they themselves released as GPL into linux (PGP signed files) and that, since they are in violation of the GPL terms, they do not have permission to distribute linux, which they are doing (get someone who's recently downloaded the kernel from the SCOX site to testify.) SCOX is SCOrewed. Cheers, Craig
    • by _|()|\| (159991)
      which IMHO is he kernel of the case

      While Groklaw's research in this matter is comendable, the comparatively recent allegation of purloined header files was never central to the dispute. It started with RCU and JFS.

      Most of the drama has been behind the scenes, as Novell has revealed how little of Unix SCO may actually own. Indeed, Novell may be entitled to 95% of the money from Microsoft and Sun that has funded this suit thusfar.

    • by Greyfox (87712)
      Maybe that's why Darl's campaigning so hard to get the GPL declared unconstitutional...

      Speaking of SCO, they recently filed their 10-K Report. [yahoo.com] Maybe that's why their stock prices is depressed. Go and read for the sweet, sweet death throes.

    • IANAL, or an open source guru, or a techie of any kind, but I find it hard to believe SCO could enter into deal under the GPL and then have any chance of convincing the courts that it's invalid. Did they not READ it the first time? And considering the kinds of lincenses that ARE easily enforced, it seems rediculous to think something like the GPL could be genuinely challenged. I've read it, and it basically says, "Use this however you like, do whatever you want with it, just be sure that once you're done wi
  • by grayshade (747479) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:31AM (#8143972)
    Imagine a beowulf cluster of... er... I for one welcome our new... uhm... All of your ABI belong... Sh*t!
  • some advice (Score:4, Funny)

    by trb (8509) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:33AM (#8143985)
    hey sco. go sue yourself.
  • Future SCO's (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:34AM (#8143987)
    Fair question:
    What's to prevent any other contributor from pulling a future SCO? Especially when you have a codebse that has such a large number of contributors. And a large variety of licenses.
    • Re:Future SCO's (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rhu (702367) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:46AM (#8144067)
      "If you'll look out the left side of the bus you'll see the smoking Caldera that used to be SCO Group...remember this sight well if ever you contemplate screwing with Open Source..."
      • by roystgnr (4015) <roystgnr@nOspAm.ticam.utexas.edu> on Saturday January 31, 2004 @12:34PM (#8144386) Homepage
        The smart ones will realize that it doesn't matter what happens to the corporate name, as long as all the corporate insiders [yahoo.com] can make millions of dollars along the way. The only way future would-be SCO's will be deterred is if all the people who have been lying and dissembling [anerispress.com] to pump up their stock are fined well in excess of their profits and/or do prison time for their fraud. You can bet this won't happen.
        • by pjrc (134994) <paul@pjrc.com> on Saturday January 31, 2004 @02:05PM (#8145056) Homepage Journal
          No. It doesn't matter if the insiders laugh all the way to the bank (presumably in the Cayman Islands). What matters is SCOX investors losing money and the company utterly ruined.

          The only reason Darl and crew are able to take this stupid strategy is they've managed to convince some investors there is a chance they can pull it off. When it turns out to be a dismal, money losing failure for all investors, future greedy unscrupulous CEOs just won't have the backing to persue such a folly.

          • The only reason Darl and crew are able to take this stupid strategy is they've managed to convince some investors there is a chance they can pull it off. When it turns out to be a dismal, money losing failure for all investors, future greedy unscrupulous CEOs just won't have the backing to persue such a folly.

            If AT&T's failed anti-open-source lawsuit didn't convince investors that the SCO lawsuit (which is far more clear cut) is unwinnable, what makes you think the SCO lawsuit will convince anyone tha
    • by JohnQPublic (158027) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @12:05PM (#8144180)

      This is exactly the reason why the FSF requires you to assign your copyright to them when you contribute code to GNU projects. Likewise the Apache Software Foundation and their projects. Someone should always have clear legal title to the entire project. Otherwise nobody may have legal status to defend it in court or to file suit against infringers.

      The other side of this is that the ownership of all contributions need to be vetted by the person/group that receives ownership. Some groups ask new contributors for a written document asserting that they own what they're contributing, especially if the contributor works for a software company. That changes the legal situation - if The TDP Group sues the XYZ Foundation for stealing their code, the XYZ Foundation has a clear defense:

      "Your Honor, we were told by Joe Coder that he had legal ownership of the code in question and he assigned that ownership to us. Naturally, if you determine otherwise, we'll comply with your order to remove it. However we believe that any damages
      etc. are a matter between the plaintiff and Mr. Coder"
      Now the last thing I want is for The TDP Group to sue me for code I put into XYZ, but if they find out I did it what will likely happen anyway.
    • by Seanasy (21730)
      What's to prevent any other contributor from pulling a future SCO?

      Scruples?

  • I knew it. (Score:5, Funny)

    by pair-a-noyd (594371) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:34AM (#8143990)
    And all I can say is that a certain Nancy Sinatra song [tralfaz-archives.com] comes to mind when I think of SCO..

    This is going to be FUN...
  • by 4lex (648184) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:35AM (#8143997) Homepage Journal
    when this SCO thing gets to an end?

    I appreciate they are doing a very worthy work (and getting the slashdot crowd to a more informed talk about SCO, something necessary because the old jokes are starting to become _really_ old).

    I sure would like them to go on when this SCO fiasto bluffs down. The free software world really needs an army of lawyers and paralawyers, if we want to stay long. I only can say "Kudos to you, groklawyers! Go on!"
    • by Our Man In Redmond (63094) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @12:42PM (#8144438)
      There's the IBM vs. SCO countersuit, the Redhat vs. SCO suit, and the SCO vs. Novell suit, for starters. After SCO turns into a smoking caldera there's still Microsoft, and there will probably be other interesting cases to cover. Groklaw will never be short for material.

      What I wonder is what will happen when Groklaw starts to follow a case where the issues don't appear to be as overwhelmingly in favor of one side as this one. That could get very interesting.
    • by 3Suns (250606) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:28PM (#8144782) Homepage
      I'm not sure if it's been done, or if plans are in the works, but Groklaw has been a tremendous boon to the Open Source community. Everybody involved with making that site, especially Pamela Jones, has done an enormous amount of expensive work, pro bono, on our (the Open Source community's) behalf. The evidence is out there, and thanks to Groklaw it is being found and the world is being informed.

      I'd like to point everybody to the little paypal button on the groklaw sidebar. They deserve credit for their work. Are there any plans for some kind of big party at a linux conference for Pam Jones et al.? Maybe after the case is settled.
  • by cluge (114877) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:40AM (#8144022) Homepage
    Webster now says: Extort: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power Scam: a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation Liar: one that tells lies Indian giver: a person who gives something to another and then takes it back or expects an equivalent in return Revised: Extort: What SCO is trying to do to the Linux community through questionable and possible illegal acts. Scam: SCO press releases Liar: Daryl McBride Indian giver: = SCO + Caldera
    • Indian giver: a person who gives something to another and then takes it back or expects an equivalent in return.

      The term "indian giver" is the result of a misunderstanding of the property law of an east-coast tribe, early in the settlement of former Europeans in North America.

      Short form: The colonists thought they were buying the land. The Indians thought they were leasing it, with anual rent payments and lease renewals.

      Needless to say, this led to considerable confusion and indignation when the india
  • SCO vs RIAA (Score:5, Funny)

    by pjwhite (18503) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:42AM (#8144037) Homepage
    I heard that the RIAA stole a lot of proprietary code from SCO, and that people at SCO have been illegally downloading a bunch of Metallica MP3s.
  • by vorwerk (543034) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:43AM (#8144046)
    "error selecting database"

    Funny, I think even this error describes SCO in numerous, subtle, and surprisingly accurate ways. :)
  • by Cronopios (313338) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:43AM (#8144049) Homepage Journal
    According to this article [enciclopediavirus.com], the FBI has visited SCO, seized a server and several workstations, and arrested several programmers and bosses.

    Can anybody confirm this?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:54AM (#8144107)
      It's gotta be a lie. We know SCO doesn't employ programmers anymore, just lawyers and executives.
    • by Anthony Boyd (242971) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @12:06PM (#8144181) Homepage

      I don't buy it. The site says they got their information from IBM. That runs totally counter to IMB's don't-talk-to-the-press rule. It looks to me like an attempt to spread bad information, pin the blame on IBM, and tarnish them.

      I'd love to be wrong, though. The idea of SCO writing a virus against itself for PR purposes is almost too funny. I'd imagine a company or two might sue SCO to cover wages spent doing MyDoom cleanup. Ha ha. That would make my heart feel soooo good.

      • I don't buy it.

        Same here, for a different reason:

        The claim is (if I read the fish babble correctly) that they were turned on to SCO by tracking the initial spread of the virus to SCO as an early focus.

        Others are already suggesting that the DoS on SCO is a red herring by the spammers - playing a game of "let's you and him fight" between two of their enemies: The anti-virus people (mainly commercial and law enforcement) and the anti-spammers (expert users and sysadmins, high cross-membership with the ope
    • It would mean SCO is stupid enough to launch the virus from their machines and in such a clear way that the FBI could find it in a few days. I doubt it. Some joker typed up something that sounded official enough that this site (which looks legit) posted the article without checking anything.

      There are also rumors that the virus "doesn't work" in that it never calls the DDOS code. This sounds like it is trivial to confirm or disprove, so does anybody know what's up with that?
  • by cunninghammer (742075) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:45AM (#8144062)
    Step 1: Contribute to Opensource.
    Step 2: Forget you did it.
    Step 3: Sue everyone else in hopes that one of the companies will decide it's cheaper to buy you then to fight.
    Step 4: Watch the stock price go through the roof [yahoo.com].
    Step 5: Profit!

    Looks like at least a few figured it out [yahoo.com].

  • by santiag0 (213647) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:53AM (#8144099)
    There is a paypal link for those that wish to contribute a little something on the home page (once you can get it to load).

    Maybe a few $ here and there from slashdot readers, and they can get a more robust setup, and survive the next slashdot link.

    No pressure. Just a thought. I've given a little twice. Groklaw is a tremendous resource for those following the SCO/IBM/Redhat/Novell saga. PJ rocks!
  • netcraft article (Score:4, Interesting)

    by elvesRgay (685389) * on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:55AM (#8144116)
    This is OT but Netcraft has an amusing article [netcraft.com] about what options SCO, the litigious bastards [caldera.com], are not using to avoid being DOSed by Mydoom tomarrow.
    • I liked option #5 in the article [netcraft.com] you linked to:

      Solution 5: SCO Execs point www.sco.com at the loopback address 127.0.0.1, end lawsuits, dismiss lawyers, and invest remaining corporate cash reserves in call options in Dell & Microsoft stock.

      Consequences: No denial of service traffic whatsoever seen on the Internet. Millions of Windows users notice that their computer is running extremely slowly. Many buy new machines, which fixes the problem. Dell & Microsoft stock rises. Everyone lives happily

  • Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by starseeker (141897) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:55AM (#8144117) Homepage
    Good news, yes. Helpful, not really.

    Look at the SCO pattern. They have made claims ranging from contract dispute with IBM to every OS in existance owing SCO IP money. They have nothing whatsoever to lose. They will merely pursue any interpretation of events which results in people owing them money. I don't know how they'll twist this yet, but since logic doesn't seem to have much to do with it they might say they were an unauthorized release and try to make some specific employee the goat, claim that the ABIs are an insignificant part of their total IP in Linux, or other things I'm not warped enough to think of. They aren't going to shut up for anything.

    Even if after everything we've heard from them to date falls through, they may try to make the claim in court that every OS in existance is derived from SCO IP, and that being the case Linux users STILL owe SCO money, regardless of code. Nonsense yes, but when has that ever stopped them before?

    Folks, the individual details of this don't matter at all. That's not what this is about. This is about SCO looking for a way - any way - to get Linux users to pay them. Knocking down a given specific detail won't phase them in the least. Until SCO in its current form is gone, we will never hear the end of this. Remember, they apparently even sent that letter to Congress saying open/free software was a threat to the US software industry! Their only concern is to come out on top, period. How is of no consequence.

    Yes, this news could be useful to the likes of IBM (I can't see Groklaw so it's hard to say ;-) But remember this isn't a war about details. This is about defining a goal, and getting there any way possible. We are in the way of SCO's using our code for commercial purposes. Therefore we are the enemy to be destroyed, and trying to reason with them has thus far been about as effective as talking a laser guided missle out of striking the target. I don't expect that trend to change any time soon, wherever the ABIs came from.
    • Chill pill dude (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bogie (31020) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:07PM (#8144613) Journal
      Come on now.

      "Even if after everything we've heard from them to date falls through, they may try to make the claim in court that every OS in existence is derived from SCO IP, and that being the case Linux users STILL owe SCO money, regardless of code."

      Not gonna happen.

      "Folks, the individual details of this don't matter at all. That's not what this is about."

      No actually the details do matter. They matter in the court of law. Contrary to popular belief you can't just buy your way into winning every lawsuit.

      "We are in the way of SCO's using our code for commercial purposes. Therefore we are the enemy to be destroyed, "

      Yea, so what? MS wants linux destroyed as well and you how well that's worked for them.

      Look, your just acting a bit hysterical here. Facts and law do matter. And contrary to your sky is falling ideas Linux isn't going to be destroyed by anyone. If it turns out that Caldera released the code under the GPL 5 years ago or whatever then this is hugely damaging to the case. This IS helpful. You can't just dismiss that and say "well SCO will just think of some angle to spin this." My advice to you is relax a bit and ease off the coffee. This case will resolve itself and there is no indication from any repudiable legal counsel or expert that SCO will be the end of Linux.
  • Code and Cookies (Score:3, Interesting)

    by limekiller4 (451497) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @12:04PM (#8144176) Homepage
    SCO claims that if they distributed Linux with their own proprietary code included inadvertently and without their knowledge, then they are not culpable for that inclusion because they never agreed to the license.

    I guess a simple analogy would be someone buying a container in a grocery store but before getting to the checkout, stuffs in a box of cookies. If the clerk sells the person that box without knowing there were cookies inside, then it is still theft. If the clerk then happens to notice the box post-sale and says, "Hey, I didn't sell you those cookies!" then the thief cannot rightfully say that they were sold to him.

    I should add in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS that I do not necessarily buy SCO's argument as being legitimate, but only that the theory the claim rests upon seems rational.
    • by One Louder (595430)
      It's closer to a store clerk inadvertantly putting cookies in boxes, and passing out the boxes for free, then accusing the recipients of stealing the cookies.
    • Re:Code and Cookies (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gregm (61553)
      No..

      It's more like someone (SCO) takes a box of stuff to the Goodwill. (Goodwill is a charitable organization that sells donated stuff) Then they wait 6 months and say "Goodwill stole our stuff and we want a cut from everything Goodwill has sold from the time we made our donation for all eternity."

      Once the truth comes out they did they did indeed make a donation they backpedal and say "well we didn't mean to donate all that stuff but we're not going to tell you which items we want back and we still want
    • by enosys (705759) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @12:26PM (#8144327) Homepage
      What was known before would be more like: A random person stuffs boxes of cookies into containers. The checkout clerks fail to notice boxes of cookies in containers and many people buy the containers with boxes of cookies in them but only pay for the container. The supermarket then tries to track down anyone who bought these and make them pay for the cookies.

      Now things seem even worse for SCO. It seems they contributed the code. That's like some supermarket employee is told by their boss to stick the boxes of cookies into the containers and then label the items as "container with free box of cookies included". Surely they can't make people pay for the cookies now.

  • Simple Question (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WindBourne (631190) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @12:06PM (#8144188) Journal
    • MS is working with SCO.
    • They have seen what SCO has to offer.
    • They have invested a small amount of money and a lot of PR.
    • They have literally billions in the bank so THEY can afford to buy SCO.


    So why have they not simply bought SCO and used it to their advantage?
    • Simple Answer (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheRealFixer (552803)
      Because it would put them directly in the hot seat. The SEC would come sniffing around again if they bought SCO, because it would be an obvious attempt to destroy competition and illegally extend their monopoly. But, by quietly purchasing "licences" to fund SCO's warchest, they can fight a proxy war against Linux, and keep their hands clean from any anti-trust investigations. After all, they were just in good faith paying fair licencing costs to SCO, like any good corporate citizen should do, right? Nev
      • Re:Simple Answer (Score:3, Informative)

        by vidarh (309115)
        It would be the FTC or the DOJ that would be looking at Microsoft, not the SEC. The SEC would be involved only if there were concerns about the reporting of either of the companies, or share price manipulation.
    • Re:Simple Question (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SpaceLifeForm (228190) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @12:37PM (#8144401)
      Simple answer: To stay clean legally.

      Microsoft can funnel money to SCO via 'licenses' to fuel the SCO FUD machine. But in the end, Microsoft won't be liable for any counter-suits. At some point (likely when Intel and MS are ready with Longhorn), SCO will be allowed to die, making the countersuits moot.

      SCO is just a soldier in the war, totally expendable.

      • Re:Simple Question (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jms (11418) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @03:28PM (#8145690)
        Simple answer: To stay clean legally.

        Don't forget that IBM is suing SCO for patent infringement on SCOs entire product line. If Microsoft were to purchase SCO, and IBM were to prevail in their patent suit, Microsoft would be facing millions of dollars in potential damages.

    • Re:Simple Question (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tony Hammitt (73675)
      The last thing M$ wants to do is buy a bunch of pending lawsuits, especially with IBM. It's fairly likely that M$ is violating a few patents of IBM's (everyone else is, why not them) so why should M$ want to take the risk?

      What would M$ have to gain by buying SCO? They don't really have to do anything right now, the world's attention is focused on SCO's fallacious claims, all M$ has to do is sit back and laugh with the rest of us. If there's anything to buy in a couple of years, M$ could pick them up for
  • by Thagg (9904) <thadbeier@gmail.com> on Saturday January 31, 2004 @12:32PM (#8144370) Journal
    SCO has recently sent a series of increasingly threatening letters to various Unix and Linux customers. In these letters, SCO approaches, and perhaps puts its toe over the line, between legal browbeating and illegal extortion.

    These letters threaten the companies over exactly this ABI issue. In the days before the internet and sites like Groklaw, people had to decide on their own, or with their lawyers, what to do about these letters. Each of the victims might attempt to do the kind of research done by Frank Sorenson and Pamely Jones here, but as the victims are probably not intellectual property experts and have their own businesses to run, they might be tempted to pay off the extortionists.

    But, now they each one of the victims has the benefit of this research, and can make a much more informed decision. The Groklaw article also provides links to the original source for each of their assertions, so that the recipients of the letters can look at the actual underlying data.

    All that said, the article is reminds me of the opening to Get Smart, where Maxwell Smart goes through an almost interminable series of doors to get to his destination. Sorenson and Jones, and their helpers, have found any number of different ways that the code in question is available for use. SCO is screwed on the basis of any one of those.

    Thad Beier
  • by 11223 (201561) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @12:39PM (#8144417)
    I find it amazing that a story like this can garner over 100 posts about SCO, yet as far as I can determine nobody is able to view the story. What are you all blathering about?
  • by DDumitru (692803) <doug@ e a s y c o .com> on Saturday January 31, 2004 @12:47PM (#8144472) Homepage
    This is an HTML w/o style tags mirror of the article itself (no posted comments).
    Thanks Pamela et.al. Great Article
    http://sd-mirror.dumitru.com/gl.htm [dumitru.com]
  • by El (94934) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:11PM (#8144634)
    It appears that in addition to all bugs being shallow with enough eyes, that all complicated legal problems are also shallow with enough eyes. How many people have helped Pamela Jones in this by locating references? It appears that open source methodology may be an advantage in legal cases as well as software development!
  • Outstanding Work (Score:4, Interesting)

    by salesgeek (263995) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @07:14PM (#8146915) Homepage
    I've always enjoyed the material Groklaw provides. It may really help though if they put a press/business friendly bullet point summary of the article. The open source position is very easy to understand:

    * SCO claims Linux infringes on their UNIX copyrights.

    * Linux was written by thousands of programmers all over the world led by Linus Torvalds.

    * SCO has not disclosed all of the parts of UNIX that they beleive are being infringed.

    * SCO has disclosed some of the alleged infringements. In each of these cases, it was found that the parts in question were already in the public domain or had been released to the public as free GPL software.

    Care should be taken to avoid terms like "code" "ABI" and "header files" they are too technical. This is a Brooklyn Bridge scam. Call it that.
    • Totally agree (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Spinality (214521)
      I love Groklaw and can't wait for each new installment. But I wish some of the heavyweight contributors there could get the hang of putting an "Executive Summary" at the beginning of the long detailed rants. Not just a short list of the conclusions (equally important), but a summary of the key facts as well.

      This article is a perfect example. I understood it just fine, but, as much as I like minutiae, I stopped reading in detail and started skimming after about 75% through -- it became much-of-a-muchness. T
  • by jms (11418) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @07:17PM (#8146925)
    SCO's claims are a little like a woman falsely claiming rape after she willingly consented to sexual relations. Worse, from their standpoint. The evidence of the GPL distribution is there for the world to see, so it's not a He Said, She Said situation where you might have at least a 50% chance of being believed.

    SCO's claims are more like if Paris Hilton had claimed rape after the videotape emerged.

    Um, Ransom, you seemed to be enjoying yourself with Linux ...

  • by chickenwing (28429) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @07:49PM (#8147137) Homepage
    It seems like the most damning evidence and contradictions [caldera.com] about SCO comes from their own website. Perhaps this is why they want to appear to be DOS'd.

"Never ascribe to malice that which is caused by greed and ignorance." -- Cal Keegan

Working...