Professional Web Applications Themes

How much code is disputed by SCO? - SCO

[email]peterwnparazzdise.net.nz[/email] (Peter) wrote in message news:<3f348743.34390462news.paradise.net.nz>... > On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 01:00:42 GMT, Russ Lyttle <lyttlecearthlink.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 ...

  1. #1

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    [email]peterwnparazzdise.net.nz[/email] (Peter) wrote in message news:<3f348743.34390462news.paradise.net.nz>...
    > On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 01:00:42 GMT, Russ Lyttle <lyttlecearthlink.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 ty 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 bull,
    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
    s, or they are paid s - 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]investorrelationssco.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.
    fuzzywzhe Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    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
    Peter Jensen Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    [email]tonyaplawrence.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.




    mlw Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
    > In comp.unix.sco.misc fuzzywzhe <fuzzywzhe> wrote:
    >>peterwnparazzdise.net.nz (Peter) wrote in message
    >>news:<3f348743.34390462news.paradise.net.nz>. ..
    >>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 01:00:42 GMT, Russ Lyttle <lyttlecearthlink.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 co, the other plan could be a Pump-and-Dump by
    the executives.
    >>SNIP<<
    > --
    > [email]tonyaplawrence.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 =
    Russ Lyttle Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    In article <Mw6Za.104189$uu5.15293sccrnsc04>, mlw <mlwnospam.us> wrote:
    >tonyaplawrence.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
    Bill Vermillion Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    Bill Vermillion <bvwjv.comremove> wrote:
    >In article <Mw6Za.104189$uu5.15293sccrnsc04>, mlw <mlwnospam.us> wrote:
    >>tonyaplawrence.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]tonyaplawrence.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]
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    [email]fuzzywzhe[/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
    >s 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
    ysts, who are not even media s, 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
    Tsu Dho Nimh Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    In <1lfcjv4t81t9jq8hnp64va6299ff2a6fb54ax.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
    D. C. Sessions Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    [email]fuzzywzhe[/email] (fuzzywzhe) writes:
    > One yst 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.
    Jesse F. Hughes Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    In comp.unix.sco.misc Jesse F. Hughes <jessephiwumbda.org> wrote:
    >fuzzywzhe (fuzzywzhe) writes:
    >> One yst 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]tonyaplawrence.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]
    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] writes:
    > In comp.unix.sco.misc Jesse F. Hughes <jessephiwumbda.org> wrote:
    >>fuzzywzhe (fuzzywzhe) writes:
    >
    >>> One yst 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!
    Jesse F. Hughes Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
    > On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Bill Vermillion wrote:
    >
    >>In article <Mw6Za.104189$uu5.15293sccrnsc04>, mlw <mlwnospam.us> wrote:
    >>
    >>>tonyaplawrence.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 <gerberbzenez.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

    Kim Petersen Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    [email]fuzzywzhe[/email] (fuzzywzhe) wrote:
    >Tsu Dho Nimh <tsudhonimhlumbercartel.com> wrote in message news:<1lfcjv4t81t9jq8hnp64va6299ff2a6fb54ax.com>. ..
    >> [email]fuzzywzhe[/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
    Tsu Dho Nimh Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:
    > [email]fuzzywzhe[/email] (fuzzywzhe) wrote:
    >
    >>Tsu Dho Nimh <tsudhonimhlumbercartel.com> wrote in message
    >>news:<1lfcjv4t81t9jq8hnp64va6299ff2a6fb54ax.com >...
    >>> [email]fuzzywzhe[/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 =
    Russ Lyttle Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    -- 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 Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: sco-list: Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?


    "Bill Campbell" <billcelestial.com> wrote in message
    news:20030812161501.GB4839alexis.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]billCelestial.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


    justin Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:
    > "justin" <justin_robbsNO_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?

    CJT Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    CJT <cheljubaprodigy.net> wrote:

    >> "justin" <justin_robbsNO_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
    Tsu Dho Nimh Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    > 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 ering 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


    justin Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?

    On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:10:58 -0700, Tsu Dho Nimh
    <tsudhonimhlumbercartel.com> wrote:
    >"justin" <justin_robbsNO_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.

    Peter Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Why doesn't the Code Completion occur in FlexBuilder IDEwhen source code is in an external file?
    By DuffyVector123 in forum Macromedia Flex General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 25th, 01:39 PM
  2. Custom control fires event but ignores some code in the code behind file
    By recoil@community.nospam in forum ASP.NET Building Controls
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 8th, 05:17 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 9th, 05:26 PM
  4. Fitting the asp code in a page inside the asp code in a template
    By rogerwithnell webforumsuser@macromedia.com in forum Macromedia Dreamweaver
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 17th, 11:29 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 11th, 06:27 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139