It seems that the claims of SCO are empty. The register is running a story on,
that when Novell sold UnixWare it didn't include the copyrights and patents on
UNIX System V, so these are still owned by Novell.
The article can be found here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/30910.html
Novell press release is also quite interesting:
http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/pr03033.html
Regards,
Martin List-Petersen
--
BOFH excuse #57:
Groundskeepers stole the root password
Look at Sco's answer :
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=110126
Paul
> It seems that the claims of SCO are empty. The register is
> running a story on, that when Novell sold UnixWare it didn't
> include the copyrights and patents on UNIX System V, so these
> are still owned by Novell.
>
> The article can be found here:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/30910.h> tml
> Novell
> press release is also quite interesting:
> http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/pr03033.html
>
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 03:01:53PM +0200, Paul Rolland wrote:
> Look at Sco's answer :
> http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=110126
It sounds as if SCO did a diff against Linux and is claiming that any
sections of lines that match, line for line, are being claimed as
'stolen'. It worries me that the panel of 'experts' they are inviting
to 'see for themselves' are members of the media. How will they know
what they are looking at, whether the code is original or not, or whether
it was SCO who stole the code from Linux?
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On Fri, 2003-05-30 at 01:04, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Eric Raymond's paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint was interesting.
See:
http://opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
kernel developers may want to help Eric collect information.
-piet
> It seems that the claims of SCO are empty. The register is running a story on,
> that when Novell sold UnixWare it didn't include the copyrights and patents on
> UNIX System V, so these are still owned by Novell.
>
> The article can be found here:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/30910.html
> Novell press release is also quite interesting:
> http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/pr03033.html
>
> Regards,
> Martin List-Petersen
> --
> BOFH excuse #57:
>
> Groundskeepers stole the root password
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
piet@http://www.piet.net
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 03:01:53PM +0200, Paul Rolland wrote:
> Look at Sco's answer :
> http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=110126
I get a page with SCO navigation and other highlights,
but no content.
> Paul
>
> > It seems that the claims of SCO are empty. The register is
> > running a story on, that when Novell sold UnixWare it didn't
> > include the copyrights and patents on UNIX System V, so these
> > are still owned by Novell.
> >
> > The article can be found here:
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/30910.h> tml
> > Novell
> > press release is also quite interesting:
> > http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/pr03033.html
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Brian Litzinger
Hello,
> On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 03:01:53PM +0200, Paul Rolland wrote:
> > Look at Sco's answer :
> > http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=110126
>
> I get a page with SCO navigation and other highlights,
> but no content.
>
Argh... Yes, I just checked, and it looks like the Press Release
has been removed. Even when clicking on "Press Release", and browsing
the list, I can't find it anymore...
It seems they removed everything related to this case from the
Press Release page.
Anyone knows why ?
Paul
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 09:56:42AM +0200, Paul Rolland wrote:
> It seems they removed everything related to this case from the
> Press Release page.
> Anyone knows why ?
Might be related to
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hps-31.05.03-003/
http://www.linuxtag.org/2003/de/press/releases.xsp?id=3
It is unclear to me if the first link refers to a cease-and-desist
letter or a restraining order from a court. Maybe people that speak
German better than I do can tell us?
--
Lionel
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 09:56:42AM +0200, Paul Rolland wrote:
>
>> It seems they removed everything related to this case from the
>> Press Release page.
>
>> Anyone knows why ?
>
> Might be related to
> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hps-31.05.03-003/
> http://www.linuxtag.org/2003/de/press/releases.xsp?id=3
>
> It is unclear to me if the first link refers to a cease-and-desist
> letter or a restraining order from a court. Maybe people that speak
> German better than I do can tell us?
It means that they must not uphold their claims. If they do they may
have to pay 250.000€. In german it's Abmahnung, should be reminder in
english? The decision was made by a court.
regards
Markus
Hi Lionel.
>> It seems they removed everything related to this case from the
>> Press Release page.
>>
>> Anyone knows why ?
> Might be related to http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hps-31.05.03-003/
...
>
> It is unclear to me if the first link refers to a cease-and-desist
> letter or a restraining order from a court. Maybe people that speak
> German better than I do can tell us?
Here's what BabelFish made of that page...although I'm none the wiser on
that point...
=======8<======= CUT =======>8=======
A muzzle for SCO
The ex-Linux-ex-Linux-Vertreiber SCO may not maintain no more for the time
being after provisional orders, Linux is an illegal beneficiary protected
Unix code. After a warning by the LinuxTag e.V. now a provisional order is
opposite SCO been issued that the enterprise may not state for the time
being any longer, Linux contains to injustice code from the Unix existence
by court. During offence SCO a punishment of 250.000 euro threatens; with a
just as high penalty clause that occupied of Bremen regional court the
German SCO address in the case of the expression mentioned, after the
software house had become before digit there Univention -- this case the
effect is limited however to the German address of SCO.
The today's SCO resident in the US Federal State Utah, followed from the
Linux linux-Vertreiber Caldera of system, Inc., which 2001 software division
and the Professional services division of the 1979 created The Santa Cruz
operation (SCO) took over the active of the servers and thereupon as Caldera
international, Inc. firmierte. Only in the year 2002 the new Caldera in SCO
designated itself over. The new SCO bankruptcy-endangered in the meantime
had arrived by the entrances from the original Santa Cruz operation into the
possession of copyrights at the operating system Unix and in March IBM for a
billion US dollar compensation sued, because Big Blue hurt the Unix vested
titles by its Linux commitment allegedly.
Although in the public fast the suspicion arose, SCO wanted to provoke by in
the meantime gratefully the action supported by Microsoft against Linux a
firm buying up as last rescue , continued to heat up the SCO strategists the
conflict lively and threatened meanwhile also the Linux author Linus
Torvalds with legal steps. This showed up however little impressed and
followed the being correct leaders, that wanted to see first proofs of SCO.
Also Novell had denied and sees themselves the SCO requirements on Unix
percentages of profits publicly now obviously likewise in the line of fire
of the SCO lawyers. ( hps /c't)
=======8<======= CUT =======>8=======
> ... or to http://www.linuxtag.org/2003/de/press/releases.xsp?id=3 ...
That includes an English translation, so is much easier to parse...
Best wishes from Riley.
---
* Nothing as pretty as a smile, nothing as ugly as a frown.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.486 / Virus Database: 284 - Release Date: 29-May-2003
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sonntag, 1. Juni 2003 11.22 wrote Lionel Elie Mamane:
> Might be related to
> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hps-31.05.03-003/
> http://www.linuxtag.org/2003/de/press/releases.xsp?id=3
>
> It is unclear to me if the first link refers to a cease-and-desist
> letter or a restraining order from a court. Maybe people that speak
> German better than I do can tell us?
I hope my english is enough to give a short translation of the heise news:
LinuxTag e.V has got an order from a court that SCO Germany prohibit to affirm
that Linux contains illegal Unix Code. If they do it again, SCO has to pay a
250.000 Euro penalty.
Is this what you want to know?
mfg
Nicolas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+2copQ9daIF2m+aQRAnj+AJ9+HwikyhVTvXBN22uvbfsDURa0QQCeLkk7
sKVB+34TJceafzIG7rPL0cM=
=JTGl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 11:22:33AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 09:56:42AM +0200, Paul Rolland wrote:
>
> > It seems they removed everything related to this case from the
> > Press Release page.
>
> > Anyone knows why ?
>
> Might be related to
> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hps-31.05.03-003/
> http://www.linuxtag.org/2003/de/press/releases.xsp?id=3
>
> It is unclear to me if the first link refers to a cease-and-desist
> letter or a restraining order from a court. Maybe people that speak
> German better than I do can tell us?
The PDF at the link behind "Strafandrohung" is the scanned version of a
court decision.
The judge said SCO is no longer allowed to publically state that Linux
illegally includes IP owned by SCO and/or that Linux user might be sued
by SCO.
The decision of the judge only affects what SCO is allowed to publically
state at the moment. This has no influence on any lawsuits now or in the
future.
> Lionel
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 11:38:25AM +0200, Markus Plail wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 09:56:42AM +0200, Paul Rolland wrote:
> >
> >> It seems they removed everything related to this case from the
> >> Press Release page.
> >
> >> Anyone knows why ?
> >
> > Might be related to
> > http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hps-31.05.03-003/
> > http://www.linuxtag.org/2003/de/press/releases.xsp?id=3
> >
> > It is unclear to me if the first link refers to a cease-and-desist
> > letter or a restraining order from a court. Maybe people that speak
> > German better than I do can tell us?
>
> It means that they must not uphold their claims. If they do they may
> have to pay 250.000???. In german it's Abmahnung, should be reminder in
> english? The decision was made by a court.
This is wrong.
SCO is still allowed to uphold their claims.
This decision only says they are currenly not allowed to publically
state that Linux illegally includes IP owned by SCO and/or that Linux
user might be sued by SCO.
They are still allowed to sue whoever they want to sue.
> regards
> Markus
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:40:51 +0200, Nicolas Vollmar said:
> I hope my english is enough to give a short translation of the heise news:
> LinuxTag e.V has got an order from a court that SCO Germany prohibit to affir
m
> that Linux contains illegal Unix Code. If they do it again, SCO has to pay a
> 250.000 Euro penalty.
No, they are not prohibited from making the claims again.
If they want to make the claims again, they have to disclose the details.
So they can't say "They Stole Code!" unless they add "See? Right here in
foobar.c, near line 510, is code illegally taken from our code".
On Sunday 01 June 2003 17:22, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 09:56:42AM +0200, Paul Rolland wrote:
> > It seems they removed everything related to this case from the
> > Press Release page.
> >
> > Anyone knows why ?
>
> Might be related to
> http://www.linuxtag.org/2003/de/press/releases.xsp?id=3
This page announces that LinuxTag sent a notice to SCO germany
demanding from SCO to ceise claiming linux infringes on SCO rights
---
> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hps-31.05.03-003/
Announces temporary restraining order against SCO germany
http://lwn.net/Articles/34351/
---
More links:
http://lwn.net/Articles/33975/
http://lwn.net/Articles/33976/
---
Regards
Michael
Hello,
Maybe some more news next week :
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=42313
>
> On Sunday 01 June 2003 17:22, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 09:56:42AM +0200, Paul Rolland wrote:
> > > It seems they removed everything related to this case
> from the Press
> > > Release page.
> > >
> > > Anyone knows why ?
> >
> > Might be related to
> > http://www.linuxtag.org/2003/de/press/releases.xsp?id=3
>
> This page announces that LinuxTag sent a notice to SCO
> germany demanding from SCO to ceise claiming linux infringes
> on SCO rights
>
> ---
>
> > http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hps-31.05.03-003/
>
> Announces temporary restraining order against SCO germany
http://lwn.net/Articles/34351/
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Paul Rolland wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 03:01:53PM +0200, Paul Rolland wrote:
> > > Look at Sco's answer :
> > > http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=110126
> >
> > I get a page with SCO navigation and other highlights,
> > but no content.
> >
> Argh... Yes, I just checked, and it looks like the Press Release
> has been removed. Even when clicking on "Press Release", and browsing
> the list, I can't find it anymore...
>
> It seems they removed everything related to this case from the
> Press Release page.
>
> Anyone knows why ?
>
> Paul
Death throes?? When a company dies, it often complains that
its competition didn't play fairly. You have charges and even
lawsuits claiming that intellectual properly was stolen, etc.
We are probably witnessing this all too common event. Stay tuned.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Rolland [mailto:[email protected]]
> Hello,
>
>> On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 03:01:53PM +0200, Paul Rolland wrote:
>> > Look at Sco's answer :
>> > http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=110126
>>
>> I get a page with SCO navigation and other highlights,
>> but no content.
>>
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=110292
At the bottom of the page is a toll free number where
you can listen to the press conference.
"Riley Williams" <[email protected]> said:
> "Lionel Elie Mamane" <[email protected]> said:
> > Might be related to http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hps-31.05.03-003/
> ...
> >
> > It is unclear to me if the first link refers to a cease-and-desist
> > letter or a restraining order from a court. Maybe people that speak
> > German better than I do can tell us?
>
> Here's what BabelFish made of that page...although I'm none the wiser on
> that point...
Let me take a look...
It says SCO for now can't claim that Linux has being using protected Unix
code. If SCO goes on doing so, they might have to pay up to E250.000.- in
fines. The same goes for SCO Germany (due to a separate court decision in
Bremen).
This decision is in force until SCO shows evidence for their claims (as was
asked for by LinuxTag e.V.) [This I get from other stuff I've read about
the matter].
It goes on to describe SCO's woes, that MS gratefully supported SCO's
actions, and the suspicion that this is just in order to get bought up.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
On Sun, 2003-06-01 at 09:56, Paul Rolland wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 03:01:53PM +0200, Paul Rolland wrote:
> > > Look at Sco's answer :
> > > http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=110126
> >
> > I get a page with SCO navigation and other highlights,
> > but no content.
> >
> Argh... Yes, I just checked, and it looks like the Press Release
> has been removed. Even when clicking on "Press Release", and browsing
> the list, I can't find it anymore...
>
> It seems they removed everything related to this case from the
> Press Release page.
>
> Anyone knows why ?
Essentially it said:
"SCO?s lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights. SCO?s
complaint specifically alleges breach of contract, and SCO intends to
protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more
than 6,000 licensees."
Meaning after they shot themselves in the food, Novell told them "no no,
that won't work", they try to shoot the rest of it off, too.
However ..somebody must have realised, that this was nonsense and
removed it from the site.
Regards,
Martin List-Petersen
martin at list-petersen dot dk
--
"Never laugh at live dragons, Bilbo you fool!" he said to himself, and
it becamea favourite saying of his later, and passed into a proverb.
"You aren't nearly
through this adventure yet," he added, and that was pretty true as well.
-- Bilbo Baggins, "The Hobbit" by J.R.R. Tolkien, Chapter XII
Paul Rolland <[email protected]> said:
[...]
> However ..somebody must have realised, that this was nonsense and
> removed it from the site.
Perhaps due to the court decision in Germany, restraining them from
claiming that Linux uses Unix code illegaly until the court sees into the
matter...
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
Hello everybody
let me speculate what we will see when SCO shows their "assumed proofs"
they will show code of the kernel and they will claim that was previously on
SCO's operating system (and was made by them without a GPL license),
how to refute that?
Ulisses
Debian GNU/Linux: a dream come true
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Computers are useless. They can only give answers." Pablo Picasso
---> Visita http://www.valux.org/ para saber acerca de la <---
---> Asociaci?n Valenciana de Usuarios de Linux <---
[email protected] wrote:
> Hello everybody
>
>
> let me speculate what we will see when SCO shows their "assumed proofs"
>
> they will show code of the kernel and they will claim that was previously on
> SCO's operating system (and was made by them without a GPL license),
>
> how to refute that?
Take the subsystem which they show code that "look! They stole it from
us!" and look at how it has developed over time, including this very
mailing list discussions. I mean. Noone pushed in any subsystem into
the kernel (except linus) and just let it sit there, most were
gradually merged, so should have historical baggage.
"Look here in 2.0, here we did like this and then during 2.1 it was
changed and in 2.2 it was rewritten to this gradually in these
kernels and in 2.3 we redid it slowly over all of these versions ..."
How can they refute it? The linux kernel and all the historical versions
are available on the net including at least some of the discussions
behind their incorporation. The other part would in part be discussed
over the IRC, I know.
// Stefan
[email protected] writes:
> Hello everybody
>
>
> let me speculate what we will see when SCO shows their "assumed proofs"
>
> they will show code of the kernel and they will claim that was previously on
> SCO's operating system (and was made by them without a GPL license),
>
> how to refute that?
>
Actually, you should not need to refute that. Innocent until proven
guilty and all that. They have to prove that it was their code.
Marcus
--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Dr. Marcus O.C. Metzler | |
|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| [email protected] | http://www.metzlerbros.de/ |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------/
El Dom 01 Jun 2003 21:19, Horst von Brand escribi?:
> Paul Rolland <[email protected]> said:
>
> [...]
>
> > However ..somebody must have realised, that this was nonsense and
> > removed it from the site.
>
> Perhaps due to the court decision in Germany, restraining them from
> claiming that Linux uses Unix code illegaly until the court sees into the
> matter...
What's up doc, nice to see you here ! :-D
Honestly, I don't know what to think right now, perhaps all that SCO's stuff
was a mere smoke-bomb (you kown, that's M$ bombs what we seen back in the
90's :-D agaisnt IBM ?, remember OS/2 --> xxxNT ?)
A chimp's IQ level CIO of any company don't start to sue everyone in the
planet if he have a little of common sense about they possibilities to win
(or else they must to be prepared for the linux's strike back :-} ), and for
this particular case they are, to say, very very wired (AFAIK they haven't
provide a concise probe of that _stolen-critical-olimpicus-code_ that nobody
else on this planet can write, except off course, SCO and their ilumminated
community of gurues :-D ).
cheers
mundo
>From what I read when SCO had more on their web site, it's more a
question of contract violation. IBM had a contract for their Unix, and
developed their code for that. Then IBM ported some of their "own"
kernel mods that was written for AIX and released it into Linux for
free. That violated some portion of the Unix contract. Thus, if IBM
wins, could have implications against some parts of GPL, and maybe
that is why Microsoft is backing SCO.
I may be way off base, but SCO always stated it was contract issues
and not code or copyright.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raimundo Bilbao [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 8:43 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: SCO's claims seem empty
>
> El Dom 01 Jun 2003 21:19, Horst von Brand escribi?:
> > Paul Rolland <[email protected]> said:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > However ..somebody must have realised, that this was nonsense
and
> > > removed it from the site.
> >
> > Perhaps due to the court decision in Germany, restraining them
from
> > claiming that Linux uses Unix code illegaly until the court sees
into
> the
> > matter...
>
> What's up doc, nice to see you here ! :-D
>
> Honestly, I don't know what to think right now, perhaps all that
SCO's
> stuff
> was a mere smoke-bomb (you kown, that's M$ bombs what we seen back
in the
> 90's :-D agaisnt IBM ?, remember OS/2 --> xxxNT ?)
>
> A chimp's IQ level CIO of any company don't start to sue everyone in
the
> planet if he have a little of common sense about they possibilities
to
> win
> (or else they must to be prepared for the linux's strike back :-} ),
and
> for
> this particular case they are, to say, very very wired (AFAIK they
haven't
> provide a concise probe of that _stolen-critical-olimpicus-code_
that
> nobody
> else on this planet can write, except off course, SCO and their
> ilumminated
> community of gurues :-D ).
>
>
> cheers
> mundo
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
El Lun 02 Jun 2003 22:18, Lauro, John escribi?:
> From what I read when SCO had more on their web site, it's more a
> question of contract violation. IBM had a contract for their Unix, and
> developed their code for that. Then IBM ported some of their "own"
> kernel mods that was written for AIX and released it into Linux for
> free. That violated some portion of the Unix contract. Thus, if IBM
> wins, could have implications against some parts of GPL, and maybe
> that is why Microsoft is backing SCO.
>
> I may be way off base, but SCO always stated it was contract issues
> and not code or copyright.
[...]
Ok, but all this noise (AFAIK) was started from a sue against IBM not Linux,
however (pretty) soon was focused on some _mitical_ portions of the linux
kernel (I really want to read those ET codes, maybe I can learn alot from
those aliens's gurues ;-D) and then toward GNU licenses and some others
wired implications.
I really think SCO haven't a real case against Linux (maybe toward IBM, but
not linux), however everybody knows what a _special_ group of lawyers can do,
no? ;-)
Another think what ringing on mi (little) brain is the simple question :
somebody remember the surprise off know, sometime ago, that NT was include
zlib's code into this?, now I asking myself, what else they have _included_?,
the SCO sue has some implications against them?. Maybe I never know, but it's
an intersting question, maybe SCO (or anybody else) ending with a sue to
every operating system on this planet from now toward if they want (a really
nasty scenario).
OK, enough of this, let's R&R and back to work... ;-D
cheers
mundo
Citat Stefan Smietanowski <[email protected]>:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Hello everybody
> >
> >
> > let me speculate what we will see when SCO shows their "assumed proofs"
> >
> > they will show code of the kernel and they will claim that was previously
> on
> > SCO's operating system (and was made by them without a GPL license),
> >
> > how to refute that?
>
> Take the subsystem which they show code that "look! They stole it from
> us!" and look at how it has developed over time, including this very
> mailing list discussions. I mean. Noone pushed in any subsystem into
> the kernel (except linus) and just let it sit there, most were
> gradually merged, so should have historical baggage.
>
> "Look here in 2.0, here we did like this and then during 2.1 it was
> changed and in 2.2 it was rewritten to this gradually in these
> kernels and in 2.3 we redid it slowly over all of these versions ..."
>
> How can they refute it? The linux kernel and all the historical versions
> are available on the net including at least some of the discussions
> behind their incorporation. The other part would in part be discussed
> over the IRC, I know.
>
I agree.
Besides this article states confirmation on similar code, still i would say: Did
it come from Linux orginally or did it come from SCO ?
http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10300314
Regards,
Martin List-Petersen
martin at list-petersen dot dk
--
Today is what happened to yesterday.
On Gwe, 2003-06-06 at 13:31, Martin List-Petersen wrote
> Besides this article states confirmation on similar code, still i would say: Did
> it come from Linux orginally or did it come from SCO ?
>
> http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10300314
If it isn't simply carefully doctored choices designed mislead clueless
analysts. You are also ignoring at least two other things - code that is
common because its from the reference (eg intel locking code) and code
from third party vendors legitimately supplied to both Linux and SCO.
Alan
And if it is only comments, it could be Sco that has taken then from
Linux, without any damage to their code ;-)
Paul
> If it isn't simply carefully doctored choices designed
> mislead clueless analysts. You are also ignoring at least two
> other things - code that is common because its from the
> reference (eg intel locking code) and code from third party
> vendors legitimately supplied to both Linux and SCO.
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Paul Rolland wrote:
> And if it is only comments, it could be Sco that has taken then from
> Linux, without any damage to their code ;-)
>
> Paul
>
> > If it isn't simply carefully doctored choices designed
> > mislead clueless analysts. You are also ignoring at least two
> > other things - code that is common because its from the
> > reference (eg intel locking code) and code from third party
> > vendors legitimately supplied to both Linux and SCO.
>
There is also the problem of those "skilled in the art" teaching
others "methods". If I worked for BCC (Big Computer Company) and,
after interfacing with others "skilled in the art", I might pick
up some programming methods which I may incorporate into open-
source code. For instance, I might use "for(;;)" at the start
of a "do forever" loop, instead of "while(1)". If I make many
contributions to open source, eventually the source may start
to show the "personality" of BCC, without anybody ever divulging
BCCs trade secrets. So, code inspection may "show" that some
code was stolen or trade-secrets divulged, without anything like
that ever actually happening. That's why, in legal battles, each
side usually hires its own experts. These experts will usually
disagree.
I remember something in an article, I think it was in IEEE
"Computer", several years ago, where attempts were made to
show that source-code was taken from several sources. It ended
up in a "tie". One theory would "prove" that AT&T got its
source from Berkeley and the other theory would "prove" that
Berkeley got its source from AT&T. The facts in the matter
were that the source could have been copied by BOTH from an
unknown source, probably public domain. The source was surprisingly
similar, even the variable names were the same. Certainly, if
I were to steal somebody else's' code, I would change the variable
names --at least.
I think we're just experiencing the death throes of SCO.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 17:13, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Gwe, 2003-06-06 at 13:31, Martin List-Petersen wrote
> > Besides this article states confirmation on similar code, still i would say: Did
> > it come from Linux orginally or did it come from SCO ?
> >
> > http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10300314
>
> If it isn't simply carefully doctored choices designed mislead clueless
> analysts. You are also ignoring at least two other things - code that is
> common because its from the reference (eg intel locking code) and code
> from third party vendors legitimately supplied to both Linux and SCO.
I'm just pushing it here. Of course this code could be from anywhere and that's exactly the point.
Wouldn't wonder me if some code was legitimate both used in Linux and SCO that came from outside.
Regards,
Martin List-Petersen
martin at list-petersen dot dk
--
In like a dimwit, out like a light.
-- Pogo
On Friday 06 June 2003 11:13, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Gwe, 2003-06-06 at 13:31, Martin List-Petersen wrote
>
> > Besides this article states confirmation on similar code, still i would
> > say: Did it come from Linux orginally or did it come from SCO ?
> >
> > http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10300314
>
> If it isn't simply carefully doctored choices designed mislead clueless
> analysts. You are also ignoring at least two other things - code that is
> common because its from the reference (eg intel locking code) and code
> from third party vendors legitimately supplied to both Linux and SCO.
>
> Alan
Don't forget BSD code that was freed up by that lawsuit in the early 90's. :)
There's no point speculating until SCO shuts up and shows us the code. (And
if they had anything real enough to withstand scrutiny, they probably would
have released it publicly by now...)
Rob
Citat Alan Cox <[email protected]>:
> On Gwe, 2003-06-06 at 13:31, Martin List-Petersen wrote
> > Besides this article states confirmation on similar code, still i would
> say: Did
> > it come from Linux orginally or did it come from SCO ?
> >
> > http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10300314
>
> If it isn't simply carefully doctored choices designed mislead clueless
> analysts. You are also ignoring at least two other things - code that is
> common because its from the reference (eg intel locking code) and code
> from third party vendors legitimately supplied to both Linux and SCO.
This article states, that they might violate the GPL:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1123199,00.asp
Regards,
Martin List-Petersen
martin at list-petersen dot dk
--
Q: What do you call the scratches that you get when a female
sheep bites you?
A: Ewe nicks.