How much code is disputed by SCO?

[fuzzywzhe]

[email]peterwn@parazzdise.net.nz[/email] (Peter) wrote in message news:<3f348743.34390462@news.paradise.net.nz>...

> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 01:00:42 GMT, Russ Lyttle <lyttlec@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>

> >According to the news reports, SCO is only claiming that the kernel 2.4 or
> >later violates SCO IP. So has anyone done a diff to see exactly which lines
> >could be disputed? We're only talking the kernel, so anyone who has copies
> >of the last kernel prior to 2.4 should be able to provide a diff for us to
> >look at. It can't be "thousands of lines".
> >

> Other changes would have gone into 2.4 so such a comparison would
> yield far more than the 'disputed' code. Anyway, if anyone in the
> Linux Community has a reasonable idea what the lines are, there is
> little point in publicising it, hence placing sensitive information in
> the hands of the enemy. Far better to save such gunpowder until it
> can have the most effect.

SCO is lying. There is no disputed code. This is an exit strategy.
They are trying to instill fear in the business community to such a degree
that somebody, anybody, will purchase them.

Take this to more typical territory. Say, for example, a company, let's
call them "Microsoft" stole code from another company, we'll call them
"Stacker". Say "Microsoft" distributed this code illegally for several
years without "Stacker"'s permission.

Would "Stacker" have the right to sue end users? Say "Microsoft" offers
a EULA, but it doesn't offer indemnification in the EULA

Well, that case happened, and Stacker didn't have any right to sue end
users - it could only sue Microsoft, which it did, and won.


But the SCO case is even more bizarre:

Say "Stacker" doesn't even identify the code, so there is no way to gauge
its worth, or indeed, if the code even exists. "Stacker" doesn't identify
the functionality, and makes no explanation as to how their proprietary
code got into the hands of some "Microsoft" employee. To make it even
more bizarre, "Microsoft" WANTS to remove the code and has asked "Stacker"
repeatedly to identify it so it can be removed, because "Microsoft" is
a respectable company that "values IP rights" but "Stacker" doesn't allow
this.

Is "Stacker" acting in good faith? Can "Stacker" demand money from anybody
without proof in a court of law?

HELL no. Talk to any COMPETENT IP lawyer, describe this case to him, and
watch him laugh until he pukes. There are lots of really shitty lawyers
out there that will say SCO has a snowball's chance in hell, which clearly
they do not.


If anybody here still thinks this isn't an exit strategy, you should take
a look at the recent "acquisition" of Vultus by SCO. SCO is majority owned
by Canopy. That means Canopy basically makes the decisions about what SCO
does. Vultus is also owned by Canopy, privately. Canopy directed SCO to
buy Vultus. Vultus is a worthless company. This was a way of taking money
out of SCO and putting it into the pockets of Canopy. If you doubt this,
try Vultus' demonstration programs, they ONLY run IE. Vultus is a Microsoft
Internet Explorer ONLY company, and you have to wonder how they will work
with SCO, a Unix company. Well, wonder no further, they won't.

You also have to wonder about the fact that Vultus is in the SAME BUILDING
that SCO is. SCO didn't buy them so they could work better together. There
is no reason to purchase them, they are both Canopy companies and they
can both worth work together anyhow.

SCO basically bought a useless rock for with a bunch of overinflated stock
shares and cash. It's as if you owned 51% of a company, and decided it was
a good idea to have it buy some dummy company you setup yesterday for 5
million bucks.

What you are witnessing folks, is a total scam. SCO doesn't expect to
collect any Linux licensing fees, they just want some really dumb and rich
company with a remarkably incompetent set of lawyers to buy them. For some
reason, they thought IBM was this company, but when June 13th, the deadline
to "resolve" the issue passed, the weren't bought out!!! What to do? Oh,
I know, their stock has rocketed up from $1 to $10 over this bullshit,
let's move some of that money out to buy a totally worthless company in
the same building as SCO. Let all the insider's sell. Let's change the
bylaws to indemnify the officers to protect them against the inevitable
litigation. And it's all being done under the cover of daylight. Well,
if Ken Lay can walk away from his scams, why can't the people behind this
do it do too? It's a lot less money...

Here's my bet - Canopy is broke, and they are trying everything and anything
to make back their investment. I think this is bigger than just SCO. The
Vultus "acquisition" points to somebody pulling strings in the background.
It's certainly not a rational purchase from a business perspective.

Oh - and you might want to check out what LinuxTag did to SCO in Germany.
Basically what RedHat is going to do to them in the US. They sued for
unfair competition, and demanded that SCO stop making claims that Linux
had SCO IP in it. Guess what SCO did eventually? They caved in totally
to LinuxTag. See if you can find ANY mention of this case on [url]www.sco.de[/url]
or [url]www.caldera.de[/url] - if you can, it's a 250,000 euro fine. That was MONTHS
ago, and nobody in the US saw fit to report it. Either our tech media
sucks, or they are paid whores - doesn't really matter which it really is.


Of course, this is all just opinion and guess work, and research, and
following the case obsessively - let's see if anybody else can come up
with a more rational explanation? I'd sure like to hear one from SCO
but investor relations doesn't seem up to the task. Write them and ask
them yourself:

[email]investorrelations@sco.com[/email]

I really feel sorry for the people working underneath these people. I
don't bear them any ill will, I imagine that jobs are tough to find in
the tech industry in Utah. Boies however, wow, he just affirmed the
general disgust of lawyers in the country. IBM is a former client of
his, oh, and Boies is up on ethics charges in Florida - almost forgot to
mention that.

Well, I had my rant. SCO will be out of business in probably less than
4 quarters, a bunch of idiot investors will be holding the bag, and
will be suing to get blood from a stone eventually.

The upside, a completely stupid and incompent set of idiots are about to
set precident with Linux and the GPL, and it will be favorable to Linux
and the GPL. The next time somebody tries to bring up IP issues with
Linux, everybody will point back to this fiasco.

[Peter Jensen]

fuzzywzhe wrote:

> The upside, a completely stupid and incompent set of idiots are about
> to set precident with Linux and the GPL, and it will be favorable to
> Linux and the GPL. The next time somebody tries to bring up IP issues
> with Linux, everybody will point back to this fiasco.

Great! Now Erik F. can finally drop that stupid "the GPL has not been
tested in court" argument :-)

--
PeKaJe

All theoretical chemistry is really physics; and all theoretical
chemists know it. -- Richard P. Feynman

[mlw]

[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

> I'm not a SCO apologist: [url]http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B267.html[/url]
> pretty well sums up my feelings about this and other posts.

First of all, SCO can not take the fight to users. There are clear
presidents that "Copyright law" applies to the copier, not the recipient.
So, the end user is not to worry.

Second, the GPL has not been tested in court, but all the lawyers I know say
it is a valid contract within a license.

As to your point, distribution is not contribution, you over simplified to
the point of missing the point. Caldera/SCO contributed code to the Linux
kernel, this is fact. The Linux kernel is under GPL, this is fact. What
lies between what is fact and what SCO says, is some undeclared peices of
code that supposedly taken from the UNIX whole and put in to Linux
*without* Caldera/SCO authorization.

If this code exists, it must be proven that it was (1) secret, although this
is not likely as it has been published for some time now. (2) taken
*without* authorization, this is not likely because Caldera/SCO had a
public policy to "Unify UNIX and Linux for Business," and it would be hard
to prove that some body of code was different from the stuff you
contributed, and that inadvertent contribution was not *your* fault. (If I
donate a Rolex to a charity auction by accident, meaning to give a Timex
instead, I still lose my Rolex.)

Failure to prove both points (1) and (2) leaves SCO in a very bad position.
We are now speaking of pure copyright law. The volume of code in the Linux
kernel is huge, the "infringement" had better be huge. If the SCO code is
reasonably available, and the "infringement" is quite small, there is no
case.

[Russ Lyttle]

[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

> In comp.unix.sco.misc fuzzywzhe <fuzzywzhe@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>peterwn@parazzdise.net.nz (Peter) wrote in message
>>news:<3f348743.34390462@news.paradise.net.nz>. ..

>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 01:00:42 GMT, Russ Lyttle <lyttlec@earthlink.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >According to the news reports, SCO is only claiming that the kernel 2.4
>>> >or later violates SCO IP. So has anyone done a diff to see exactly
>>> >which lines could be disputed? We're only talking the kernel, so anyone
>>> >who has copies of the last kernel prior to 2.4 should be able to
>>> >provide a diff for us to look at. It can't be "thousands of lines".
>>> >
>>> Other changes would have gone into 2.4 so such a comparison would
>>> yield far more than the 'disputed' code. Anyway, if anyone in the
>>> Linux Community has a reasonable idea what the lines are, there is
>>> little point in publicising it, hence placing sensitive information in
>>> the hands of the enemy. Far better to save such gunpowder until it
>>> can have the most effect.

>

>>SCO is lying. There is no disputed code. This is an exit strategy.
>>They are trying to instill fear in the business community to such a degree
>>that somebody, anybody, will purchase them.

>

>>Take this to more typical territory. Say, for example, a company, let's
>>call them "Microsoft" stole code from another company, we'll call them
>>"Stacker". Say "Microsoft" distributed this code illegally for several
>>years without "Stacker"'s permission.

>

>>Would "Stacker" have the right to sue end users? Say "Microsoft" offers
>>a EULA, but it doesn't offer indemnification in the EULA

>

>>Well, that case happened, and Stacker didn't have any right to sue end
>>users - it could only sue Microsoft, which it did, and won.

>
> While the comparison of the SCO case to this is interesting,
> it's really not the same. Stacker claimed patent infringement,
> not outright theft of code.
>

>>But the SCO case is even more bizarre:

>

>>Say "Stacker" doesn't even identify the code, so there is no way to gauge
>>its worth, or indeed, if the code even exists. "Stacker" doesn't identify
>>the functionality, and makes no explanation as to how their proprietary
>>code got into the hands of some "Microsoft" employee. To make it even
>>more bizarre, "Microsoft" WANTS to remove the code and has asked "Stacker"
>>repeatedly to identify it so it can be removed, because "Microsoft" is
>>a respectable company that "values IP rights" but "Stacker" doesn't allow
>>this.

>
> Stacker didn't claim code was stolen. They said that Microsoft's code
> violated their patents. It's NOT the same thing.
>

As I recall Stacker did claim that MS stole their code. MS defense was that
one of their "software engineers" was using the stacker code for testing
and "accidently" left it in one of the nightly builds. MS settled the case
by buying Stacker. This particular MS stunt cost me a lot. They distributed
3 different incompatible compression schemes with that particular OS. And
there was no way to tell in advance which was in use on a specific copy.
I think SCO is trying for the same results. Someone decides it is cheaper to
buy SCO than fight. Of coarse, the other plan could be a Pump-and-Dump by
the executives.

>>SNIP<<

> --
> [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
> Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlecatearthlink.net
at = @

[Bill Vermillion]

In article <Mw6Za.104189$uu5.15293@sccrnsc04>, mlw <mlw@nospam.us> wrote:

>tony@aplawrence.com wrote:

>Second, the GPL has not been tested in court, but all the
>lawyers I know say it is a valid contract within a license.

Just this week in one of the many electronics newsletters I receive
it was noted that the EU has problems with the GPL as basically it
says everything is sold as is and there is no liability to the
vendor.

This is counter to German law where not only the vendor but the
dealer is liable for problems which may exists.

I'm sorry I can't point you to the site that I read this on.

I guess when all this makes it to court in 2005 it may all be over
but the finger pointing - given the rate of change in this
business.

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

[tony@aplawrence.com]

Bill Vermillion <bv@wjv.comremove> wrote:

>In article <Mw6Za.104189$uu5.15293@sccrnsc04>, mlw <mlw@nospam.us> wrote:

>>tony@aplawrence.com wrote:

>>Second, the GPL has not been tested in court, but all the
>>lawyers I know say it is a valid contract within a license.

>Just this week in one of the many electronics newsletters I receive
>it was noted that the EU has problems with the GPL as basically it
>says everything is sold as is and there is no liability to the
>vendor.

Please watch the attribs. I did NOT make the statement you
attributed to me above.

--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

[email]fuzzywzhe@yahoo.com[/email] (fuzzywzhe) wrote:

>For example: SCO claims that bits and pieces of FUNCTIONS and MODULES
>have been copied, not an entire function or module. I'm a coder, I
>hate reusing code, especially somebody elses - every coder wants to do
>it from scratch.

Yes, but would you rewrite the comment from scratch too? They
have mentioned that "even the comments" were copied. If you saw
a decently written comment, would you mess with it?

>McBride and Sontag don't know about Abstract Syntax Trees either,
>obsfucation of variables and function names won't fool an AST.
>Professors (competent ones anyhow that care if you cheat) use these
>to detect cheating, and of course, they are used by compilers.

>Anyhow ONE tech journal picked up on that - that nobody would waste
>time obsfucating code once they groked it entirely. So - the media
>whores I think are simply incompetent. They don't undertand
>programming and they SURE as hell don't understand IP law.

Those that have seen SCO's code snippets have mostly been
analysts, who are not even media whores, but information pimps.



Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

[D. C. Sessions]

In <1lfcjv4t81t9jq8hnp64va6299ff2a6fb5@4ax.com>, Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:

> Yes, but would you rewrite the comment from scratch too? They
> have mentioned that "even the comments" were copied. If you saw
> a decently written comment, would you mess with it?

"The comments" in question are quite likely module headers,
which specify the interfaces to the module. /Those/ would
almost always be worth copying because you don't want to
mess with the definitions.

There is at least one thread of speculation that the files
SCO is showing people are all .h files -- which are, in
many cases, kept as nearly unchanged as possible precisely
because they control compatibility.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

[Jesse F. Hughes]

[email]fuzzywzhe@yahoo.com[/email] (fuzzywzhe) writes:

> One analyst actually was an ex Unix kernel coder. He was the one
> that said that the code wasn't just in Linux but several places
> and that it wasn't very important code. He also asked to see the
> code history and was denied that.

Got any references for that?

Thanks.

(Followups set, since I'm not sure that this is welcome fodder in
sco.misc.)

--
"Yup, as far as I'm concerned, if you live out your lives smiling the
entire time full of pride in your *believed* accomplishments, when you
never had any, well that's ok with me."
--James Harris, a man of remarkable accomplishments.

[tony@aplawrence.com]

In comp.unix.sco.misc Jesse F. Hughes <jesse@phiwumbda.org> wrote:

>fuzzywzhe@yahoo.com (fuzzywzhe) writes:

>> One analyst actually was an ex Unix kernel coder. He was the one
>> that said that the code wasn't just in Linux but several places
>> and that it wasn't very important code. He also asked to see the
>> code history and was denied that.

>Got any references for that?

>Thanks.

>(Followups set, since I'm not sure that this is welcome fodder in
>sco.misc.)

Why assume that?

In fact, unlike many Linux groups where the choice of OS sometimes seems
to have a religious fervor attached to it, most of us over at c.u.s.m are
simply using or supporting that OS for business purposes. At most we
might feel some faint nostalgia for the OS itself, but few of us
have any strong feelings toward the company, or have any definite
opinions about who stole what from who. And most of us also do
Linux and other things nowadays too, so we aren't fixated on SCO.

So in fact, we're probably quite interested in this subject. I will say
I'm not particularly interested in yet another blah blah violated GPL
piece, or other nonsensical rants, but intelligent discussion and new
developments certainly do interest me.

--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

[Jesse F. Hughes]

[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] writes:

> In comp.unix.sco.misc Jesse F. Hughes <jesse@phiwumbda.org> wrote:

>>fuzzywzhe@yahoo.com (fuzzywzhe) writes:

>

>>> One analyst actually was an ex Unix kernel coder. He was the one
>>> that said that the code wasn't just in Linux but several places
>>> and that it wasn't very important code. He also asked to see the
>>> code history and was denied that.

>

>>Got any references for that?

>

>>Thanks.

>

>>(Followups set, since I'm not sure that this is welcome fodder in
>>sco.misc.)

>
> Why assume that?

Just a precaution. If you know better about what's of interest for
that group, then of course you are welcome to ignore my followups.

> In fact, unlike many Linux groups where the choice of OS sometimes seems
> to have a religious fervor attached to it, most of us over at c.u.s.m are
> simply using or supporting that OS for business purposes. At most we
> might feel some faint nostalgia for the OS itself, but few of us
> have any strong feelings toward the company, or have any definite
> opinions about who stole what from who. And most of us also do
> Linux and other things nowadays too, so we aren't fixated on SCO.
>
> So in fact, we're probably quite interested in this subject. I will say
> I'm not particularly interested in yet another blah blah violated GPL
> piece, or other nonsensical rants, but intelligent discussion and new
> developments certainly do interest me.

I appreciate the correction, then.

--
"No feeling sympathy for mathematicians who start marching with signs
like 'Will work for food' in the future... I will not show mercy
going forward. I was trained as a soldier in the United States Army
after all... We play to win." --James Harris, feel his wrath!

[Kim Petersen]

Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:

> On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Bill Vermillion wrote:
>

>>In article <Mw6Za.104189$uu5.15293@sccrnsc04>, mlw <mlw@nospam.us> wrote:
>>

>>>tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
>>>Second, the GPL has not been tested in court, but all the
>>>lawyers I know say it is a valid contract within a license.

>>
>>I'm sorry I can't point you to the site that I read this on.
>>
>>I guess when all this makes it to court in 2005 it may all be over
>>but the finger pointing - given the rate of change in this
>>business.

>
>
> [url]http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/08/06/HNgplunenforceable_1.html[/url]

While all that may be correct - i'm quite sure that the implications of
this is severely misrepresented in the doc....

In the EU - if you sell someone a product that claims certain things -
you (regardless of contractual sayings) have the right to revoke the
sale in case the product doesn't live up to the claims.

Plus any user can revoke a sale (when sealed) up to a specific timeline.

None of this will affect the GPL really - it will affect the
Seller/Buyer relationship.

Eg. the GPL also specifically says it claims NO usefullness (as-is) - so
the Licence specifically states that you may be buying a worthless product.

But if (say) IBM sells you a product (that is GPL'ed) then IBM could
have the sale revoked if it doesn't live up to the claims IBM stated.

>
>
> --
> Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
> ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047
>

--
Med Venlig Hilsen / Regards

Kim Petersen - Kyborg A/S (Udvikling)
IT - Innovationshuset
Havneparken 2
7100 Vejle
Tlf. +4576408183 || Fax. +4576408188

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

[email]fuzzywzhe@yahoo.com[/email] (fuzzywzhe) wrote:

>Tsu Dho Nimh <tsudhonimh@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message news:<1lfcjv4t81t9jq8hnp64va6299ff2a6fb5@4ax.com>. ..

>> [email]fuzzywzhe@yahoo.com[/email] (fuzzywzhe) wrote:
>> Yes, but would you rewrite the comment from scratch too? They
>> have mentioned that "even the comments" were copied. If you saw
>> a decently written comment, would you mess with it?

>
>Yes, because how I understand the code and how somebody else
>understands the code are two different things.
>
>Once I understand the code completely, I rewrite it completely.
>The only thing I might copy would be a description of what the
>function or module would do since that defines the interface.

Trying to write an original description of a module's function
and what modules it interfaces with would be like trying to write
an original description of an RS-232 port or a toaster oven.

You have very little freedom of choice for vocabulary, and any
well-written English description would be extremely close to any
other ... technical writing, and especially short bits written
about a single widget, tends to be very uniform. Almost all tech
writers would explain the functions in the order the code makes
things happen, and list the dependencies alphabetically.

I've seen things written by writres at Motorola or TI that are
almost identical to what I wrote about a similar device. What
can you say about a voltage regulator?

Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

[Russ Lyttle]

Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:

> [email]fuzzywzhe@yahoo.com[/email] (fuzzywzhe) wrote:
>

>>Tsu Dho Nimh <tsudhonimh@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
>>news:<1lfcjv4t81t9jq8hnp64va6299ff2a6fb5@4ax.com >...

>>> [email]fuzzywzhe@yahoo.com[/email] (fuzzywzhe) wrote:
>>> Yes, but would you rewrite the comment from scratch too? They
>>> have mentioned that "even the comments" were copied. If you saw
>>> a decently written comment, would you mess with it?

>>
>>Yes, because how I understand the code and how somebody else
>>understands the code are two different things.
>>
>>Once I understand the code completely, I rewrite it completely.
>>The only thing I might copy would be a description of what the
>>function or module would do since that defines the interface.

>
> Trying to write an original description of a module's function
> and what modules it interfaces with would be like trying to write
> an original description of an RS-232 port or a toaster oven.
>
> You have very little freedom of choice for vocabulary, and any
> well-written English description would be extremely close to any
> other ... technical writing, and especially short bits written
> about a single widget, tends to be very uniform. Almost all tech
> writers would explain the functions in the order the code makes
> things happen, and list the dependencies alphabetically.
>
> I've seen things written by writres at Motorola or TI that are
> almost identical to what I wrote about a similar device. What
> can you say about a voltage regulator?
>
> Tsu
>
> --
> To doubt everything or to believe everything
> are two equally convenient solutions; both
> dispense with the necessity of reflection.
> - Jules Henri Poincaré

That is absolutely correct. But if we have a particular disputed /*comment*/
it isn't that difficult to change so there is no copyright infringement.
Wouldn't it make SCO look silly if any substantial dispute was over
non-execuitable comments?
--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlecatearthlink.net
at = @

[justin]

-- snip a bunch of interesting information --

The thing that concerns me is that IBM has never denied that this code is in
the Linux kernel. Everything that I have heard them say is that SCO doesn't
have the right to pull their contract. If I understand right the offending
code was written into Unix and Linux by Sequent and involves NUMA and SMP
(oversimplifying). It basically amounts to them using similar techniques
for both OS's due to the similarities of the systems. My opinion is that
IBM believes that since Sequent originally wrote the code SCO has no
ownership of it. They own the algorithm behind the code, thus the actual
code implementation is irrelevant. The question for the courts to decide is
who really owns that. SCO obviously can't release any of the offending code
without being very careful, because otherwise it becomes public knowledge.
Anyway, I am not a lawyer, but that is my $0.02.

Justin


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/03

[justin]

"Bill Campbell" <bill@celestial.com> wrote in message
news:20030812161501.GB4839@alexis.mi.celestial.com ...

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003, justin wrote:

> >-- snip a bunch of interesting information --
> >
> >The thing that concerns me is that IBM has never denied that this code is

in

> >the Linux kernel. Everything that I have heard them say is that SCO

doesn't

> >have the right to pull their contract. If I understand right the

offending

> >code was written into Unix and Linux by Sequent and involves NUMA and SMP
> >(oversimplifying). It basically amounts to them using similar techniques
> >for both OS's due to the similarities of the systems. My opinion is that
> >IBM believes that since Sequent originally wrote the code SCO has no
> >ownership of it....

>
> This issue is addressed well here:
> [url]http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030619.html[/url]
>
> ``If we go back to the Sequent RCU research papers published about this
> work, we'll see they are very carefully written to present a general way
> of solving this problem on almost any multi-threaded operating system.

It

> is a general solution. In the key paper, the first mention of some
> version of UNIX doesn't come until page five under the "implementation"
> section. They did this work -- work that was supported by a variety of
> federal grants and involving more companies than just Sequent -- to
> develop a concept that they then implemented on UNIX. ''
>
> Bill
> --
> INTERNET: [email]bill@Celestial.COM[/email] Bill Campbell; Celestial Systems, Inc.
> UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
> FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206)

236-1676

> URL: [url]http://www.celestial.com/[/url]
>
> Memoirs -- Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs, and his
> wife Hillary got $8 million for hers. That's $20 million for memories

from

> two people who for eight years repeatedly testified they couldn't

remember

> anything.

Bill,

Thanks for the link. That was the article I was getting at. Supposedly,
this guy wrote, some of the "offending code" while working for Sequent. It
is only natural that he would implement it the same way on both system,
since both systems are so similar. The article that Bill sites sums it up
nicely and I urge all interested to read it.

" ... Both his UNIX and Linux versions (works B and C) were derived from his
original research (work A) which was not exclusively limited to UNIX. His
paper shows that was the case and while SCO may see it as the smoking gun,
IBM will see it as the proof of innocence.

What SCO owns (forgetting for the moment Novell's contrary ownership claim
and perhaps AT&T's) is the copyright on this particular work as applied to
UNIX. But Linux is not UNIX, so applying the same ideas -- even the same
code if it comes originally from an upstream source -- is not necessarily
copyright infringement. ..."

Justin


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/03

[CJT]

Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:

> "justin" <justin_robbs@NO_SPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>

>>-- snip a bunch of interesting information --
>>
>>The thing that concerns me is that IBM has never denied that this code is in
>>the Linux kernel.

>
>
> IBM will say very little right up until the time the trial starts
> and people start testifying.
>
>
>
>
>
> Tsu
>
> --
> To doubt everything or to believe everything
> are two equally convenient solutions; both
> dispense with the necessity of reflection.
> - Jules Henri Poincaré

Didn't they say something like they believe the suit is without merit?

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

CJT <cheljuba@prodigy.net> wrote:

>> "justin" <justin_robbs@NO_SPAMhotmail.com> wrote:

>>>The thing that concerns me is that IBM has never denied that this code is in
>>>the Linux kernel.

>Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:

>> IBM will say very little right up until the time the trial starts
>> and people start testifying.

>Didn't they say something like they believe the suit is without merit?

Yes, in their formal response, filed withthe court. I don't
thing you will hear much from them until aftre "all rise" is
heard.




Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

[justin]

> Justin,

>
> Unfortunately, you have fallen victim to SCO's FUD.
>
> SCO have been making two separate claims:
> 1. Trade Secret violations by IBM (NOT copyright)
> 2. Copyright claims against Linux (but no lawsuit to back this up!)
>
> Now, even SCO has agreed that IBM owns the copyrights to the NUMA, RCU,
> JFS code that IBM contributed to the kernel. SCO has claimed however that
> IBM was obligated to keep this code a trade secret (even though IBM owns
> the copyright). So, what has IBM to deny?

The thread was debating whether or not this code exists. My assertation is
that there is unix code in the linux kernel, but that IBM via Sequent owns
or at the very least is claiming to own the code with the rights to use it
as the see fit. From what little I know of the case, SCO is standing on
very shaky ground. However, I will try to never underestimate the stupidity
of people (myself included at times). I can see that SCO could make enough
of a case for this to get interesting.

Let's not forget that IBM doesn't exactly have a stark white reputation of
playing fairly. Also, you can't tell me that every single person who has
contributed anything to the Linux kernel is innocent of IP theft however
indirect it maybe. It will be very interesting to see how linux and the GPL
hold up. I lay odds that it will be just fine. But with the sheer volume
of linux contributors someone is bound to have used something that they have
seen while working somewhere else. It is important for end users to be
comfortable with their software choice.

> The question (for IBM and IBM alone) is not whether IBM's code is in the
> kernel, but whether IBM had the right to submit IBM's own code.
>
> SCO's claims agains the kernel appear to involve copyrights, but since
> SCO's own statements have been contradictory and always shifting, it is
> difficult to really judge them. For just one example of this, SCO stated
> at some point in the past that the 2.2 kernel was clean, yet now they are
> asking ALL linux users to buy a license, apparently irrespective of
> whether they are using 2.2, 2.4, etc.
>
> For another example, publically, they have highlighted SMP as containing
> "their" code, yet, they do not seem to be excluding users who are running
> non-SMP versions of the linux kernel from the "need" to buy a license from
> them.

Don't get me started on SCO's licensing policy. I have 900+ machines
running OpenServer 5, so I have to keep track of 900 pieces of paper with a
valid license number on it and know which license is for which machine,
because heaven forbid I use the same one twice. But that is unrelated to
the post.

Regarding their claims against linux, they are either suckering people for
cash to fight IBM on the contract issue, while trying to get someone to buy
them at an inflated price, or they have an ace in the hole to play in the
courtroom. I don't know what it would be, but I am no legal expert.




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/03

[Peter]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:10:58 -0700, Tsu Dho Nimh
<tsudhonimh@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

>"justin" <justin_robbs@NO_SPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>

>>-- snip a bunch of interesting information --
>>
>>The thing that concerns me is that IBM has never denied that this code is in
>>the Linux kernel.

>
>IBM will say very little right up until the time the trial starts
>and people start testifying.
>

Notice that SCO has pretty well shut up now. They were not quite
expecting the legal missiles (especially IBM's four patent suits) that
hit them last week. Their stock price is going down the gurgler, SEC
will probably start investigating them for insider trading, their
customer base will start drying up, and those businesses and dealers
in the SCO food chain will sue them for wrecking their businesses. It
is a bit like a submarine mortally wounded by depth charges with the
crew wondering what to do next.