Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCO: Code Proof Analyzed, Linus Interviewed

simoniker posted more than 11 years ago | from the sco-sleep-til-brooklyn dept.

Caldera 890

Arker writes "Bruce Perens has now obtained a copy of the entire slide show from which the recently scrutinized SCO-related Linux code excerpts came, and has analyzed the remainder of the 'evidence' they presented there. Their other code exhibit turns out to have been the venerable Berkeley Packet Filter(!), and their revised line-counts are consistent with simply adding together all the lines of code that have been contributed by Unix licensees." Also, Iphtashu Fitz writes "A new interview with Linus Torvalds has been posted on eWeek.com. In it he slams SCO over the recently leaked source code. Among other things, he points out in the interview that some of the code in question has been removed from the 2.6 kernel ['because developers complained about how "ugly" it was'] before SCO even started complaining."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GNAA Announces acquisition of SCO (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751014)

GNAA Announces acquisition of SCO
By Tim Copperfield
New York, NY - GNAA (Gay Nigger Association of America) today announced acquisition of The SCO Group [yahoo.com] for $26.9 million in stock and $40 million in gay niggers.

GNAA today announced it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire the intellectual property and technology assets of The SCO Group, a leading provider of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, based in Lindon, Utah. GNAA's acquisition of SCO technology will help GNAA sign up more members worldwide. In addition to developing new solutions, GNAA will use SCO engineering expertise and technology to enhance the GNAA member services.

"I'd love to see these GNAA types slowly consumed by millions of swarming microbes and converted into harmless and useful biochemicals." said an anonymous slashdot poster, blinded by the GNAA success in achieving first post on a popular geek news website, slashdot.org [slashdot.org] .

"This GNAA shit is getting out of hand. Slashdot needs troll filters. Or better yet a crap flood mod that I can exclude from my browsing. Seriously, a good troll is art, what you dumb fucks are doing is just plain stupid." said spacecowboy420.

macewan, on linuxquestions [linuxquestions.org] said "Thanks for that link to the SCO quotes page. My guess is that they want to be bought out. Hrm, think they want GNAA to buy them??"

After careful consideration and debate, GNAA board of directors agreed to purchase 6,426,600 preferred shares and 113,102 common shares (the equivalent of 150,803 ADSs) of SCO, for an aggregate consideration of approximately US$26.9 million and approximately $40 million for gay niggers that were working in Lindon, Utah offices of The SCO Group.

If all goes well, the final decision is to be expected shortly, followed by transfer of most SCO niggers from their Lindon, UT offices to the GNAA Headquarters in New York.

About GNAA
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it.

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.isprime.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here [nero-online.org] .

About SCO
The SCO Group [SCOX [yahoo.com] ] helps millions of gay niggers in more than 82 countries around the world grow their penises everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a network of more than 11,000 nigger resellers and 8,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable nigger support and services to prospective members and customers.
SCO and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX and UnixWare are registered trademarks of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of their respective owners.

This news release contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. All statements other than statements of historical fact are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements. These statements are based on management's current expectations and are subject to uncertainty and changes in circumstances. Actual results may vary materially from the expectations contained herein. The forward-looking statements contained herein include statements about the consummation of the transaction with SCO and benefits of the pending transaction with SCO. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described herein include the inability to obtain regulatory approvals and the inability to successfully integrate the SCO business. GNAA is under no obligation to (and expressly disclaims any such obligation to) update or alter its forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.


If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

________________________________________________
| ______________________________________._a,____ |
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ |
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ |
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ |
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ |
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ |
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ |
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ |
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ |
| ______-"!^____________________________________ |
` _______________________________________________'

Re:GNAA Announces acquisition of SCO (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751035)

Dumb whitey mods, how the FUCK is that OFF TOPIC?
The Article is ABOUT SCO.
And so is this post.
Fuckwits.

Re:GNAA Announces acquisition of SCO (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751043)

die.

penis (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751082)

may penis forever be up your butt

Re:penis (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751153)

In Soviet Russia the butt is up the penis.

Mirror (5, Informative)

inertia@yahoo.com (156602) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751016)

Man, the site's already slow even though it's "slashdot effect ready" (har). Here's a couple mirrors:

GNAA! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751021)

The Gay Nigger Association of America (GNAA) is the group that represents the world's Gay Nigger population as well as those non gay, non nigger patrons that support it. Its mission is to foster a gay and free-loving climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the gay niggers that comprise the most vibrant national gay nigger conglomerate in the world. GNAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate pro-homosexual propaganda and blue, rubber dicks produced and sold in the United States.

We strongly urge you to join the GNAA and support our cause. Gay Niggers everywhere need your help!

BE NIGGER!

BE GAY!

JOIN THE GNAA!!

Join #GNAA on the EFNet IRC Network today! (irc.secsup.org, irc.easynews.com, irc.servercentral.net)

________________________________________________
| ______________________________________._a,____ |
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ |
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ |
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ |
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ |
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ |
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ |
| ____a,___jk_ GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_|
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ |
| ______-"!^____________________________________ |
` _______________________________________________'
-posted by GNAA member Penisbird

Linus Pulls no Punches (5, Funny)

rgmoore (133276) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751022)

Torvalds: They are smoking crack. Their slides said there are [more than] 800,000 lines of SMP code that are "infringing," and they are just off their rocker.

Come on Linus, stop dancing around the issue. Tell us what you really think about their claims.

Re:Linus Pulls no Punches (1)

cj171 (687355) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751057)

truly some beautiful comments by mr linux himself...glad to see he's not taking them seriously until they decide to get serious and show the code! Altho, its kinda funny that some of the code they claim is theirs has been written by Linus' close contacts and even himself...

Re:Linus Pulls no Punches (5, Insightful)

bwt (68845) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751112)

Well, they are smoking crack.

The funny thing about this whole mess is that it just doesn't seem to matter how clear it becomes that SCO is just completely insane -- people in the press still put on a game face and act like they are serious. That is truly, truly sad.

I want to see an article from a non-open source advocate called "SCO is Smoking Crack". Maybe the judge will hold as much.

Re:Linus Pulls no Punches (4, Insightful)

bwt (68845) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751137)


I wish someone would analyze the IBM patent claims. Unlike SCO, IBM has named specific patents. It should be rather easy for someone familiar with SCO's products to assess whether these are hair-brain patents or real-deal patents.

I understand people don't like software patents (I don't either), but given that the law is otherwise, I'm interested in how credible IBM's counterclaims are going to be.

first p0st (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751023)

sux0rs

Get out your picks and torches! (4, Funny)

downix (84795) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751026)

SCO has committed the most vile of sin. They not only created FUD, not only stole our source code, not only tried to steal our limelight, but they revealed that we used ANCIENT BSD CODE!

The evil ones must die!

Oh no... (2, Funny)

bsd troll (680181) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751156)

Linux is dying!

BSD Code? (4, Funny)

mikeee (137160) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751175)

Oh, no! It's an insidious plot to kill Linux by implanting BSD code, because as well all know, BSD is dying, and has been for over a decade now.

Berkeley Packet Filter? (5, Funny)

MakoStorm (699968) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751028)

I think I have one of those on in my bedroom so my sinuses dont clog up. :-)

Filter the packet... drop drop drop...

Please! (5, Interesting)

Znonymous Coward (615009) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751031)

let the major media outlets catch on to this.

Re:Please! (5, Interesting)

Gherald (682277) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751056)

After the initial anouncement that the claims were bogus, the media will probably just forget about this and never mention SCO again.

Meanwhile SCOX will plumment and leave a lot of angry investors.

I doubt the SEC will get involve though, as this is looking less and less like a stock "pump and dump" scheme and more and more like an average case of sheer corporate idiocy.

Re:Please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751079)

YOU POST A LOT

Houston? (1, Insightful)

John Paul Jones (151355) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751047)

We've gone plaid. Settle down, everyone, and enjoy the show. This will solidify the GPL and the viability of OSS in a federal court. Kick ass.

Get rid of the BSD Code (0, Troll)

bwt (68845) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751049)

Perhaps Linux could simply get rid of all the BSD code. That would avoid this kind of crap in the future. Not that SCO has a point, but it just seems like Linux ought to be it's own purebred thing.

Re:Get rid of the BSD Code (5, Interesting)

kcbrown (7426) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751132)

Perhaps Linux could simply get rid of all the BSD code. That would avoid this kind of crap in the future. Not that SCO has a point, but it just seems like Linux ought to be it's own purebred thing.

Whatever for?

If it's to help develop a competing approach to solving a problem, I'm all for it: whichever one winds up proving to be best at solving the problem should be the one adopted, even if it's the other camp's solution.

But dumping the BSD code just to be "unique" is silly.

With respect to this SCO nonsense, the only thing I care about is whether or not the origins of the contributed code can be traced. If a piece of code winds up in, say, FreeBSD, I expect they have checked its source as thoroughly as the Linux maintainers would for any code contributed directly to Linux. In short, I see little reason to discriminate between the two.

Finally, if a piece of code winds up in either distribution that shouldn't, then it's a moderately simple matter of pulling the code and rewriting it if necessary if it's found that the contributer who donated the code did so without proper authorization. One would hope that a court would find the action of such removal and rewriting in the face of accidental infringement to be sufficient remedial action once the infringing code is revealed. But this is the U.S. legal system we're talking about here, and it seems to be so screwed up that I can't dismiss the possibility that it would rule heavily against an accidental infringer. In fact, things seem bad enough that I have to consider such a situation to be likely.

Sigh...

Here's the analysis (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751051)

Analysis of SCO's Las Vegas Slide Show Bruce Perens, Perens LLC <bruce@perens.com>
With help from Linus Torvalds and the Open Source community.

You may re-publish this material. You may excerpt it, reformat it and translate it as necessary for your presentation. You may not edit it to deliberately misrepresent my opinion.

An SCO presentation shown in Las Vegas on August 18th alleged infringement by the Linux developers. The presentation, in Microsoft PowerPoint format is here [perens.com] , and an conversion of the presentation that can be viewed using a web browser is here [perens.com] .

SCO released the presentation to Bob McMillan, a reporter for IDG News Service, without any non-disclosure terms. Bob asked me to comment upon it. here's his story [infoworld.com] .

I will start with SCO's demonstrations regarding "copied" software. It is likely that SCO would present the very best examples that they have of "copied" code in their slide show. But I was easily able to determine that of the two examples, one isn't SCO's property at all, and the other is used in Linux under a valid license. If this is the best SCO has to offer, they will lose.

Slide 15 shows purports to show "Obfuscated Copying" from Unix System V into Linux. SCO further obfuscated the code on this slide by switching it to a Greek font, but that was easily undone. It's entertaining that the SCO folks had no clue that the font-change could be so easily reversed. I'm glad they don't work on my computer security :-)

The code shown in this slide implements the Berkeley Packet Filter, internet firewall software often abbreviated as "BPF". SCO doesn't own BPF. It was created at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory with funding from the U.S. Government, and is itself derived from an older version called "enet", developed by Stanford and Carnegie-Mellon Universities. BPF was first deployed on the 4.3 BSD system produced by the University of California at Berkeley. SCO later copied the software into Unix System V.

The BPF source code is here [lbl.gov] on the Lab's web site. A paper on its design, published in 1993, is here [lbl.gov]

BPF is under the BSD license. That license allowed SCO to legally copy the code into Unix System V in 1996, but since SCO doesn't own the code, they have no right to prevent others from using it.

So, in this case the SCO "pattern-recognition" team correctly deduced that the Linux and SCO implementations of BPF were similar. But I was able to determine the origin of BPF after a few minutes of web searches on google.com . Why couldn't a "pattern-recognition team" do the same? It's difficult to believe they simply didn't bother to check. It's also likely that SCO dropped attribution of the Lab's copyright from the System V copy of the BPF source code, or the team would have known.

The Linux version of BPF is not an obfuscation of the BPF code. It is a clean-room re-implementation of BPF by Jay Schulist of the Linux developers, sharing none of the original source code, but carefully following the documentation of the Lab's product. The System V and Linux BPF versions shown in slide 15 implement the same virtual machine instruction set, which is used to filter (allow, reject, change, or reroute) internet packets. And the documentation for that VM even specifies field names. Thus Schulist's and the Lab's implementations appear similar. Had Schulist chosen to directly use the Lab's code, it still would have been legal. But the version in Linux is entirely original to the Linux developers. There is no legal theory that would give SCO any claim upon it.

Slides 10 through 14 show memory allocation functions from Unix System V, and their correspondence to very similar material in Linux. Some of this material was deliberately obfuscated by SCO, by the use of a Greek font. I've switched that text back to a normal font.

These slides have several C syntax errors and would never compile. So, they don't quite represent any source code in Linux. But we've found the code they refer to. It is included in code copyrighed by AT&T and twice released as Open Source under the BSD license: once by Unix Systems Labs (a division of AT&T), and again by Caldera, the company that now calls itself SCO. The Linux developers have a legal right to make use of the code under that license. No violation of SCO's copyright or trade secrets is taking place.

The oldest version of this code we've found so far is in Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming, published in 1968. Knuth was probably working from earlier research papers. He didn't write in C, so details differ but the algorithm is the same. The implementation shown in the slides was written by Dennis M. Ritchie or Ken Thompson at AT&T, in 1973. You can see the 1973 version of the function in this file [perens.com] , originally called dmr/malloc.c. The code is from Unix version 3, the oldest known version of Unix that still exists in machine-readable form. The complete source for that system can be found here [tuhs.org] on the net. In 2002, Caldera released this code as Open Source, under this license [tribug.org] . Caldera is, of course, the company that now calls itself SCO. The license very clearly permits the Linux developers to use the code in question. Historical information on why Caldera released the Unix source code to the public is here [oreillynet.com] , and contains some information relevant to the SCO court cases.

Another version of the code is copyrighted by the University of California as part of the BSD Unix system that they produced for the U.S. Army and released as Open Source. That code is also under the BSD license, and appears here [pdp11.org.ru] in this file released in 1984. It's interesting to consider how this code came to belong to the University.

In the early 1990s, AT&T's Unix Systems Labs (USL) sued BSDI, a company vending the BSD system, and the University of California, over this and other code in the BSD system. The claims that SCO is making are very similar to the AT&T claims. AT&T lost. It was found that AT&T had copied heavily from the university without attribution, and thus AT&T settled the case. In the settlement, the University agreed to add an AT&T copyright notice to some files and to continue to distribute the entire system under the BSD license. AT&T agreed to pay the University's court costs. Some details of the lawsuit are here [bell-labs.com] .

AT&T was actually found to have lost its copyright to the code in question during the lawsuit, because the code wasn't published. This would not be the case today, as there have been changes in copyright law. But the judge's decision back then was:

Consequently, I find that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood that it can successfully defend its copyright in [Unix version] 32V. Plaintiff's claims of copyright violations are not a basis for injunctive relief.

The result is that between the judge's finding and 1996, when there were additional changes to the Bern copyright convention that would have made the AT&T code copyrightable, the code was essentially in the public domain. Code derived from Unix before and during that time would be legal.

The AT&T code that was subject of this lawsuit survives into SCO's current system. SCO's "pattern analysis team" found this code and correctly concluded that it was similar to code in Linux. But they didn't take the additional step of checking whether or not the code had been released for others to copy legally.

The code in question has already been removed from the most recent development versions of the Linux kernel, for technical reasons. It duplicated a function provided elsewhere, and thus never should have been included. The code was intended for one SGI system that was never sold, and another that is extremely rare, and was not used in the mainstream Linux kernel.

In slide 20, SCO alleges that it owns essentially all of the code in Linux that has been touched at all by IBM, SGI, and other Unix licensees. These contributions constitute over 1.1 Million lines of code, 1549 files, totalling 2/3 of the new code developed between the releases of Linux 2.2 and 2.4. But how could SCO possibly own all of this code that is copyrighted by other companies and individuals? SCO's legal theory, explained in slide 6, is that the AT&T Unix license compelled all of these companies to assign to AT&T, and later SCO, all derived works that they created incorporating the Unix source code. Here is the key clause on slide 6:

Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
Under SCO's theory, if any code created by a Unix licensee ever touches Unix, SCO owns that code from then on, and can deny its creator the right to make use of it for any other purpose.

SCO's legal theory fails, because they ignore the fact that if a work doesn't contain some portion of SCO's copyrighted code, it is not a derived work. This is especially glaring on slide 20, in which SCO claims ownership of JFS, IBM's Journaling File System. The version of JFS used in Linux was originally developed for the OS/2 operating system, and was later ported to both Unix System V and Linux. SCO's claims fail in a similar manner for the other products they mention: RCU or Read Copy Update, software that keeps processors in a multi-processor system from interfering with each other, was developed by Sequent, a company later purchased by IBM. Sequent developed RCU under Dynix, a Unix-derived operating system. They later removed RCU from Dynix - separating it from any code owned by SCO - and added it to Linux. Similarly, SGI's XFS, the eXtent FileSystem, was separated from IRIX, a Unix-derived operating system, and ported to Linux.

SCO's contention is that copyrighted software can never be separated, that any code created by a Unix licensee that ever touches SCO Unix or is even loosely based on Unix is entirely SCO's from that moment on, and can never be used for another purpose by its creator without authorization from SCO. SCO's contention goes against any reasonable understanding of the boundaries of intellectual property. It's unlikely that it would survive a court room.

SCO's responses to this document are We own Unix and would know what it looks like, and It's his word against ours. I'm not, however, asking you to rely on my word. I've presented you with links to the evidence, most of which is available at web sites not under my control. Please examine it and make your own conclusion.

Bruce Perens

Ummm, isn't Bruce setting himself up? (0, Interesting)

gmajor (514414) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751052)

Isn't Bruce setting himself up for a lawsuit by SCO? Can he be sued, because isn't the slideshow confidential, and he is knowingly redistributing company confidential material?

Likewise, if I were to republish confidential documents from someone like Cisco Systems, couldn't I be sued for damages?

Re:Ummm, isn't Bruce setting himself up? (2, Informative)

gmajor (514414) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751065)

I'm sorry, I missed the third paragraph, where Bruce says he got it from a reporter who did not sign the NDA!

RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751074)

and that includes all moderators who mod that redundant crap up.

Re:RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751086)

see the reply to his own post, dickknuckle

Re:RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751124)

see the reply to his own post, dickknuckle

I saw it, and I don't care. He still posted before reading, even if he eventually read it.

Dickknuckle...that's a good one. I prefer mine not to bend, though, actually.

Re:Ummm, isn't Bruce setting himself up? (1, Flamebait)

bwt (68845) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751087)

Have you ever heard of the First Amendment?

Do you understand that you have to AGREE to keep a secret before somebody has a claim against you for not keeping it?

Just post the NDA Bruce signed, and then you'll have a point.

First amendment is irrelevant (2, Interesting)

siskbc (598067) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751145)

Do you understand that you have to AGREE to keep a secret before somebody has a claim against you for not keeping it?

That's actually not true. If I steal something from them, I'm culpable. Having free speech does not relieve you of the consequences of what you say, or the concepts of libel and slander wouldn't exist. This is a civil matter, not a criminal one, and the first amendment is irrelevant here.

That said, Bruce got the thing from a guy who was, himself, non-NDA'd. So he's not liable.

Re:Ummm, isn't Bruce setting himself up? (5, Insightful)

mercuryresearch (680293) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751139)

Generally, no. I work with NDA material that's subsequently leaked (by other parties) all the time, and usually it's the leak-er that's considered at fault, not the person who republishes the leak. Presumably SCO could go after whoever sent the powerpoint pitch or took digital photos of the slides if they could find them.

Most of the companies I know that find sensitive material that is still marked "confidential" re-published by the press simply request that it be removed, but it appears that the reporting on the material itself is fairly well protected; I would imagine Bruce's commentary would fall under the reporting but things like slide photos or the slides themselves (if the "confidential" remained on the slide during the presentation) might be iffy.

As an aside, a lot of companies knowingly let "confidential" documents leak as a way of unofficially distributing the information. SCO could be hoping that this would result in very damaging reports without ever having to provide the code snippets publically -- it leaves an out of deniability "that was an internal document never meant for the outside world and it wasn't reviewed by our lawyers for accuracy, yada yada"

But this is SCO, so the fact that Bruce used the same alphabet as SCO in his report is probably grounds enough for them.

Slashdotted already (3, Informative)

bloatboy (170414) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751054)

I copied/pasted.

Analysis of SCO's Las Vegas Slide Show
Bruce Perens, Perens LLC
With help from Linus Torvalds and the Open Source community.

You may re-publish this material. You may excerpt it, reformat it and translate it as necessary for your presentation. You may not edit it to deliberately misrepresent my opinion.

An SCO presentation shown in Las Vegas on August 18th alleged infringement by the Linux developers. The presentation, in Microsoft PowerPoint format is here, and an conversion of the presentation that can be viewed using a web browser is here .

SCO released the presentation to Bob McMillan, a reporter for IDG News Service, without any non-disclosure terms. Bob asked me to comment upon it. here's his story.
I will start with SCO's demonstrations regarding "copied" software. It is likely that SCO would present the very best examples that they have of "copied" code in their slide show. But I was easily able to determine that of the two examples, one isn't SCO's property at all, and the other is used in Linux under a valid license. If this is the best SCO has to offer, they will lose.

Slide 15 shows purports to show "Obfuscated Copying" from Unix System V into Linux. SCO further obfuscated the code on this slide by switching it to a Greek font, but that was easily undone. It's entertaining that the SCO folks had no clue that the font-change could be so easily reversed. I'm glad they don't work on my computer security :-)

The code shown in this slide implements the Berkeley Packet Filter, internet firewall software often abbreviated as "BPF". SCO doesn't own BPF. It was created at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory with funding from the U.S. Government, and is itself derived from an older version called "enet", developed by Stanford and Carnegie-Mellon Universities. BPF was first deployed on the 4.3 BSD system produced by the University of California at Berkeley. SCO later copied the software into Unix System V.

The BPF source code is here on the Lab's web site. A paper on its design, published in 1993, is here

BPF is under the BSD license. That license allowed SCO to legally copy the code into Unix System V in 1996, but since SCO doesn't own the code, they have no right to prevent others from using it.

So, in this case the SCO "pattern-recognition" team correctly deduced that the Linux and SCO implementations of BPF were similar. But I was able to determine the origin of BPF after a few minutes of web searches on google.com . Why couldn't a "pattern-recognition team" do the same? It's difficult to believe they simply didn't bother to check. It's also likely that SCO dropped attribution of the Lab's copyright from the System V copy of the BPF source code, or the team would have known.

The Linux version of BPF is not an obfuscation of the BPF code. It is a clean-room re-implementation of BPF by Jay Schulist of the Linux developers, sharing none of the original source code, but carefully following the documentation of the Lab's product. The System V and Linux BPF versions shown in slide 15 implement the same virtual machine instruction set, which is used to filter (allow, reject, change, or reroute) internet packets. And the documentation for that VM even specifies field names. Thus Schulist's and the Lab's implementations appear similar. Had Schulist chosen to directly use the Lab's code, it still would have been legal. But the version in Linux is entirely original to the Linux developers. There is no legal theory that would give SCO any claim upon it.

Slides 10 through 14 show memory allocation functions from Unix System V, and their correspondence to very similar material in Linux. Some of this material was deliberately obfuscated by SCO, by the use of a Greek font. I've switched that text back to a normal font.

These slides have several C syntax errors and would never compile. So, they don't quite represent any source code in Linux. But we've found the code they refer to. It is included in code copyrighed by AT&T and twice released as Open Source under the BSD license: once by Unix Systems Labs (a division of AT&T), and again by Caldera, the company that now calls itself SCO. The Linux developers have a legal right to make use of the code under that license. No violation of SCO's copyright or trade secrets is taking place.

The oldest version of this code we've found so far is in Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming, published in 1968. Knuth was probably working from earlier research papers. He didn't write in C, so details differ but the algorithm is the same. The implementation shown in the slides was written by Dennis M. Ritchie or Ken Thompson at AT&T, in 1973. You can see the 1973 version of the function in this file, originally called dmr/malloc.c. The code is from Unix version 3, the oldest known version of Unix that still exists in machine-readable form. The complete source for that system can be found here on the net. In 2002, Caldera released this code as Open Source, under this license. Caldera is, of course, the company that now calls itself SCO. The license very clearly permits the Linux developers to use the code in question. Historical information on why Caldera released the Unix source code to the public is here, and contains some information relevant to the SCO court cases.

Another version of the code is copyrighted by the University of California as part of the BSD Unix system that they produced for the U.S. Army and released as Open Source. That code is also under the BSD license, and appears here in this file released in 1984. It's interesting to consider how this code came to belong to the University.

In the early 1990s, AT&T's Unix Systems Labs (USL) sued BSDI, a company vending the BSD system, and the University of California, over this and other code in the BSD system. The claims that SCO is making are very similar to the AT&T claims. AT&T lost. It was found that AT&T had copied heavily from the university without attribution, and thus AT&T settled the case. In the settlement, the University agreed to add an AT&T copyright notice to some files and to continue to distribute the entire system under the BSD license. AT&T agreed to pay the University's court costs. Some details of the lawsuit are here.

AT&T was actually found to have lost its copyright to the code in question during the lawsuit, because the code wasn't published. This would not be the case today, as there have been changes in copyright law. But the judge's decision back then was:

Consequently, I find that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood that it can successfully defend its copyright in [Unix version] 32V. Plaintiff's claims of copyright violations are not a basis for injunctive relief.

The result is that between the judge's finding and 1996, when there were additional changes to the Bern copyright convention that would have made the AT&T code copyrightable, the code was essentially in the public domain. Code derived from Unix before and during that time would be legal.

The AT&T code that was subject of this lawsuit survives into SCO's current system. SCO's "pattern analysis team" found this code and correctly concluded that it was similar to code in Linux. But they didn't take the additional step of checking whether or not the code had been released for others to copy legally.

The code in question has already been removed from the most recent development versions of the Linux kernel, for technical reasons. It duplicated a function provided elsewhere, and thus never should have been included. The code was intended for one SGI system that was never sold, and another that is extremely rare, and was not used in the mainstream Linux kernel.

In slide 20, SCO alleges that it owns essentially all of the code in Linux that has been touched at all by IBM, SGI, and other Unix licensees. These contributions constitute over 1.1 Million lines of code, 1549 files, totalling 2/3 of the new code developed between the releases of Linux 2.2 and 2.4. But how could SCO possibly own all of this code that is copyrighted by other companies and individuals? SCO's legal theory, explained in slide 6, is that the AT&T Unix license compelled all of these companies to assign to AT&T, and later SCO, all derived works that they created incorporating the Unix source code. Here is the key clause on slide 6:

Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT.

Under SCO's theory, if any code created by a Unix licensee ever touches Unix, SCO owns that code from then on, and can deny its creator the right to make use of it for any other purpose.

SCO's legal theory fails, because they ignore the fact that if a work doesn't contain some portion of SCO's copyrighted code, it is not a derived work. This is especially glaring on slide 20, in which SCO claims ownership of JFS, IBM's Journaling File System. The version of JFS used in Linux was originally developed for the OS/2 operating system, and was later ported to both Unix System V and Linux. SCO's claims fail in a similar manner for the other products they mention: RCU or Read Copy Update, software that keeps processors in a multi-processor system from interfering with each other, was developed by Sequent, a company later purchased by IBM. Sequent developed RCU under Dynix, a Unix-derived operating system. They later removed RCU from Dynix - separating it from any code owned by SCO - and added it to Linux. Similarly, SGI's XFS, the eXtent FileSystem, was separated from IRIX, a Unix-derived operating system, and ported to Linux.

SCO's contention is that copyrighted software can never be separated, that any code created by a Unix licensee that ever touches SCO Unix or is even loosely based on Unix is entirely SCO's from that moment on, and can never be used for another purpose by its creator without authorization from SCO. SCO's contention goes against any reasonable understanding of the boundaries of intellectual property. It's unlikely that it would survive a court room.

SCO's responses to this document are We own Unix and would know what it looks like, and It's his word against ours. I'm not, however, asking you to rely on my word. I've presented you with links to the evidence, most of which is available at web sites not under my control. Please examine it and make your own conclusion.

Bruce Perens

"treated .. as" (4, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751194)

Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT.

Personally, I find this very subject to multiple interpretations. Nothing in the contract explicitly grants ownership of derivatives to ATT, so IBM could argue that even without the amendment that grants ownership of derivatives to IBM, nothing gives ownership of the derivatives to SCO. This might be important for code developed at Sequent.

bunghole (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751061)

Classic Linus (5, Interesting)

sethadam1 (530629) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751062)

eWeek: For its part though, SCO has said that there are so many lines of code, and a variety of applications and devices that use that code, that simply removing the offending code would not be technically feasible or possible and would not solve the problem. Do you agree?

Torvalds: "They are smoking crack"

---

You gotta love Linus. It's not just that he speaks his mind, it's that he's just cavalier about what he says.

On a serious note, I'd like to see some the guys involved with SMP or JFS or NUMA get together and *sue SCO.* Tell them they want a cut of any license they collect on unless they can PROVE they aren't claiming ownership of parts of their GPL/BSD contributed code.

wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751081)

what asshat modded this overrated? it's not EVEN RATED yet you numbskulls!

Re:wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751120)

By not posting bad comments anonymously, you're implicitly rating them at 1.

Re:Classic Linus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751119)

On a serious note, I'd like to see some the guys involved with SMP or JFS or NUMA get together and *sue SCO.*

Uh, IBM has a bazillion patents on SMP technology (albeit not specific to x86) as well as NUMA stuff. They also *own* JFS.

Oh, and did you hear? They're suing SCO. Where have you been?

Not exactly... (4, Interesting)

sethadam1 (530629) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751163)

IBM is COUNTERsuing SCO. I'm talking about straight up suits that aren't in response to SCO stirring up the shit. Out of the blue ones that says "Hey assholes, *I* wrote some of that code you're claiming ownship of, so let me see some of that cash."

Re:Classic Linus (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751138)

Thinkgeek needs to put this priceless quote on a t-shirt and donate the proceeds to the legal fund RedHat created.

Re:Classic Linus (2, Insightful)

_|()|\| (159991) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751172)

I'd like to see some the guys involved with SMP or JFS or NUMA get together and *sue SCO.*

It's interesting that the slides mention XFS and NUMA, two SGI contributions. Also, the BSD malloc() seems to have come from SGI, by way of HP. Will SCO "revoke" the Irix, Tru64, and HP-UX licenses?

Removed from the code (0)

shird (566377) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751066)

Does it matter that the code in question was 'removed from the code because it was ugly'? It was still obviously there in the first place and used as a basis for the new code.

Even if the code wasn't in there at all, but they examined the original SCO code in order to create their own, that would still be in violation of their IP rights.

Re:Removed from the code (1)

putaro (235078) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751109)

Did you read the article? That was point 2. Point 1 was that it's ancient, historic code that was released by Caldera (now calling themselves SCO) into the public domain and it was in BSD which has already been shown (legally) to not be derivative of AT&T Unix.

Re:Removed from the code (1)

110010001000 (697113) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751113)

This is correct, and very worrisome. Fixing previous problems by removing the code doesn't solve the issue. Even if we removed all offending SCO code (if there really is any) today, it still wouldn't absolve us.

You must be new here (1)

bstadil (7110) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751123)

In ADDITION to being there legally it has now been removed.

It is called adding insult to injury FYI

Re:Removed from the code (1)

neurostar (578917) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751129)

yes, that's true... but that code doesn't belong to SCO. It's not AT&T code, it's BSD code, so SCO has no right to it.

neurostar

Re:Removed from the code (4, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751142)

Does it matter that the code in question was 'removed from the code because it was ugly'? It was still obviously there in the first place and used as a basis for the new code.

Obviously it doesn't matter in that sense. But it's a great vindication of all of us that have been skeptical of SCOs claims, because it's exactly the kind of thing we predicted. It's, at worst, a piece of BSD licensed code that should have had a copyright notice preserved that got lost along the way. This isn't the sort of thing you can justify a $3billion lawsuit on, regardless. They should have sent an email and asked for the copyright notice to be replaced, that's what anyone else would have done.

On top of that, it's code contributed by SGI, so they're on the hook for actual damages (not bloody much) but even if SCOs novel ideas about suing users were correct, they couldn't sure more than about 5 people over this anyway. It's a file that's used only to support one of SGIs old machines, it's totally irrelevant to the vast majority of users.

Even if the code wasn't in there at all, but they examined the original SCO code in order to create their own, that would still be in violation of their IP rights.

Wrong.

First off there's no such thing as 'IP rights' per se, that's just a rubric used to cover four different sorts of rights; patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secrets.

SCO has no related patents, so that's not an issue. SCO doesn't own the Unix trademark (the Open Group does) and even if they did that's not an issue here. Copyright doesn't prohibit learning from someone elses code, only copying it outright, so it doesn't back up your claim.

A trade secret would come closest - if someone saw the code under NDA and then copied it into Linux, then that person would definately be liable. But only that person, and the trade secret status of the code would be ended.

Re:Removed from the code (1)

spacey (741) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751147)

Does it matter that the code in question was 'removed from the code because it was ugly'?

It does matter. SCO has claimed that the code and the methods that they believe infringe are so centraly and so relevant to linux that it can't run without it. However so far the code they've shown has proven to be replaceable and relatively unimportant.

-Peter

A couple of things left out (4, Interesting)

Arker (91948) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751071)

I actually mentioned this in my submission, but it got cut out.

The 'SCO' slide of their 'own' code shows the Berkley Packet Filter. The Linux code they showed, they claim is an 'obfuscated copy' but it is in fact a well documented clean implementation written from the published spec. The interesting issue is that SCO seems to be under the misapprehension that the BFP is their own code to begin with - that seems to imply that they illegally stripped a copyright notice somewhere along the way.

Re:A couple of things left out (2, Informative)

eddy (18759) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751111)

I like it how the SCO lawyer is trying to plug the worst leaks:

Michael Heise, a partner with Boies, Schiller & Flexner who's representing SCO, downplayed concerns that the contested code may be covered by an open-source license. In an interview with CNET News.com at the SCO show, Heise said even if, hypothetically, some older Caldera code were open-source, it wouldn't make a difference to the case.

"Let's say you have a hundred files, and you put one of your hundred files under the GPL (GNU General Public License). That doesn't mean you've lost the rights to your other 99 files," Heise said. "So I don't think it's going to have an impact."

Hilarious [businessweek.com] . Such a brave little hero.

Torvalds: They are smoking crack. (2, Funny)

speedfreak_5 (546044) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751073)

You sure? I could've sworn they were doing some LSD and had a REALLY bad trip...

Criminal prosecution (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751077)

Will a criminal prosecution of McBride and co-conspirators happen if this lawsuit turns out unjustified?

It seems frivolous and an abuse of the justice system.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751080)

Sco: You put my quarter you found on the street to buy your new car!

Victim: Relax, I'll give you your quarter back. (It was so dirty that I had to wrap it in a tissue)

Sco: But I don't want it back! I want your entire car! And if you hurry, I won't charge you damages caused by you driving it after buying it.

New SCO Logo! (5, Funny)

fidget42 (538823) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751083)

Here [ecommercetimes.com] . Nuff Said.

Re:New SCO Logo! [mod parent up!] (1)

negacao (522115) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751135)

Check the image out, it's hilarious.

We need to get /. to make this the new SCO logo...

I hate to say it, but the rebuttal article has (4, Informative)

thammoud (193905) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751088)

misinformation. For example,

"SCO's legal theory fails, because they ignore the fact that if a work doesn't contain some portion of SCO's copyrighted code, it is not a derived work. This is especially glaring on slide 20, in which SCO claims ownership of JFS, IBM's Journaling File System. The version of JFS used in Linux was originally developed for the OS/2 operating system"

JFS actually came from AIX to OS/2 and not the other way around. Do a google search on "JFS OS/2 AIX" and you can confirm this. e.g

http://freshmeat.net/projects/jfs/?topic_id=142

Tarek

Sure? Or is it you that's misunderstanding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751152)

You provide no evidence. ISTR IBM has said that they ported JFS from OS/2 (which was a clean re-implementation, not a port from AIX) to linux, not from AIX to linux. That is what's important.

If you say otherwise please provide some evidence. Your link didn't provide any, that I could see.

Re:Sure? Or is it you that's misunderstanding? (1)

thammoud (193905) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751189)

I provided an example link that you did not bother to read. Here is one from IBM itself.

http://www.developer.ibm.com/tech/faq/individual /0 ,,2:20060,00.html

Tarek

Re:I hate to say it, but the rebuttal article has (5, Informative)

Arker (91948) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751185)

IIRC, it was originally developed for AIX, yes, but the OS/2 version was not a port, it was a clean room implementation from the spec sheet instead. And it was the OS/2 code that was the basis for the Linux port. So, in fact, the article is correct.

SCO moves overseas (0)

Burnsy3071 (24982) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751089)

After everything that has been stated it is clear SCO has no case. I would be very surprised if the executives of SCO didn't know that. They already seem to be doing the pump and dump with the stock. So who wants to bet they just decide to take an overseas trip sometime before any trial starts?

chain of logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751093)

"was found to have lost its copyright to the code in question"

I'm wondering if this isn't where SCO is going with the attack on the GPL. I think they are going to claim that since the license allows widespread copying, that the copyright holders are not attempting to protect their work, and therefore it is in the public domain.

All your code are belong.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751094)

McBride: All your code are belong to us. Linus: Once and for, shut the fuck the up!

Call the FTC! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751095)

Repeating this from the last SCO story, needs more exposure...

I just got off the phone with the FTC. If everyone calls and complains then the chances they will investigate SCO goes up. They look for patterns. In other words, if the majority of their calls are about SCO then they will investigate. It is time to take the Slashdot effect to the phones.

These are the key points to make:

-You did not purchase software from SCO
-The company that "produced" your software did not purchase it from SCO
-It was not marketed or packaged by SCO
-Despite this SCO is asking for $199 from home users (You) and $699 from business for 1 CPU

They will ask for your name, phone number, address etc. That is mostly to verify your identity and citizenship I think.

Here is the number:

1-877-382-4357 option 4

They are nice and listen well. The lady I talked to even took the time to get a better understanding of what Linux is. The best quote from her "You didn't purchase it from them and they want you to pay them? That sounds crazy."
--
Call FTC 1-877-382-4357 opt 4
-You didn't buy from SCO
-Vendor didn't either
-They want $199 ...

Here's some information that may help. They actually asked for this info:

The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042

801-765-4999 phone

The guy I spoke with was actually somewhat familiar with what Linux is. One of his first questions was how this company got involved with me, which my answer was "Well, that's the problem. They didn't."

He eventually asked if SCO has contacted me personally with regard to this situation, which they have not. Don't lie to them. Be completely truthful. At the end of the call I got a reference number, and he said that if SCO does contact me personally, I should call back and let them know.

It was very easy to do, and took about 5 minutes of my time. The recording while I wated for the counselor to pick up the phone did say that the FTC does track trends in complaints. If we get enough people to complain, something will happen. Please, take a few minutes and call!

Re:Call the FTC! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751161)

I did this and was sent this [smootopia.com] in the mail!

Re:Call the FTC! (4, Insightful)

FattMattP (86246) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751199)

It might be a good idea to write to the Utah attorney general office as well.

now that hurts (4, Funny)

b17bmbr (608864) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751097)

'because developers complained about how "ugly" it was'

Aggressive! (5, Insightful)

mao che minh (611166) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751099)

Is it just me, or is Linus perhaps the most up front and direct figure in IT today? I suppose that the founder/creator of the most progressive and aggressive OS/kernel in the world would be just as tenacious as his creation.

I really respect the guy. I hope that he is around when Linux finally overtakes the OS world once and for all.

Drawing it out... (5, Interesting)

chill (34294) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751100)

First SCO said they weren't going to show the code because they had to "protect their secrets" -- those secrets being the copyrighted code itself.

Then they went on extortion trips to Japan and around the U.S. Neither panned out, with major companies like Oracle, Fujitsu, Mitsubishi and H-P calling their bluff. Accusations without proof are meaningless.

They showed code snippets under super-tight NDAs, mostly to non-geeks, who promptly said "yep, they look the same". Of COURSE they looked the same! Would SCO show code that doesn't match? The fact that it was all out of context didn't seem to matter.

When THAT didn't convince anyone, they started showing bits of code without an NDA -- and the rest of the world found out why IBM, Oracle, Fujitsu, et. al. isn't afraid and why SCO was so reluctant to show the code in the first place.

SCO is clueless. They have no idea what they own and what they don't. They don't know what they, as Caldera and SCO, gave away and what they "borrowed" from others for their own. They simply assume that any .c file written by anyone at Sun, SGI, H-P, IBM, Sequent, Cray or any other licensee belongs to them.

Somebody just did a "diff" between the SCO source and a Linux kernel and went off from there.

Just watching them escalate the claims day after day gives a clue. First it is dozens of lines, then hundreds, then thousands, and now MILLIONS!

The truth is SCO probably had NO intention of this getting to the discovery phase -- they were hoping for a settlement or buyout before all this came to light.

They are quite desparate now.

Damn! I wish I bought SCOX back in November.

Re:Drawing it out... (2, Insightful)

hedley (8715) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751159)

Also, don't pay the extortion when the letters start getting sent out!

Step 1) We need to arrange a class action against them the moment the first individual is sued. Let's be 100% cohesive here, to fight one Linux user is to fight us all.
Step 2) Ensure that language is in our class action that we stipulate no payment ("relief") whatsoever until all pending litigation concerning this matter (IBM. Redhat) is brought to a close and found for SCO. If there is no finding for SCO, then make SCO liable for our legal costs.

I proudly run the 2.4.x and 2.6.x kernels.

Hedley

Tomorrow's headline.... (5, Funny)

technomom (444378) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751101)

SCO Sues Linus Torvalds for Libelous Crack-Smoking Comment

JoAnn

My favorite... (1)

siskbc (598067) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751103)

...is the part where they say they own every bit of code that you ever write, if you've ever licensed any form of unix ever before. Talk about overreaching claims.

Before two long, they're going to claim to have IP rights on my firstborn.

What's that I hear? (1)

rnturn (11092) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751105)

Oh! It's a fat lady singing.

SCO's arguments are toast.

Please, please, PLEASE! Let's hope Bruce's analysis receives a wide distribution. (Not that there's much doubt of that happening.)

I have a feeling I'm not going to get much work done at the office tomorrow. I'll be watching SCOX prices dropping. And laughing.

Re:What's that I hear? (2, Interesting)

eddy (18759) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751177)

You and I wish. I've been following it for weeks, and it just refuse to drop. Too little volyme! None sane wants to touch this one, which makes it easy for insiders and others to manipulate it. See for instance all the tape-painting at the end of the day. Small lots someone is basically selling to himself just to push the stock up before closing, giving it a "nice" start-end value, not representative of the day as a whole.

Torvalds's's Comment's (5, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751106)

After reading Linus's's's comment's, I think he is just going to replace the 'offending' code with a big ASCII middle finger. like this,-> 'n|m m|n' only way bigger.

And dammit, why does Linus Torvalds have to have 'S' at the end of his first and last name? I can't figure out where the apostrophy goes. ;)

Re:Torvalds's's Comment's (2, Informative)

Nexus Seven (112882) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751173)

It goes after the "s"; you don't need to provide an extra "s". There shouldn't be an apostrophe in "comments", either.

Like this: Torvalds' comments

What does the 'department name' mean this time... (1)

JessLeah (625838) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751114)

...and how does it relate to the story? I may be dense (yes I am), but I don't get the reference? SCO sleep 'til Brooklyn?

Re:What does the 'department name' mean this time. (1)

Randy Rathbun (18851) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751165)

"No Sleep Til Brooklyn" is a song by the Beastie Boys.

Danger: Stupid, Tech Ignorant Judge. (4, Interesting)

Maul (83993) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751115)

While this still seems like a pump and dump for SCO's execs, the biggest danger here is that SCO lands itself in the courtroom with a stupid and/or tech ignorant judge who will agree with their baseless, stupid claim that they own this code.

It may be one heck of a long shot for them, but dumber rulings have been made before.

Suddenly SCO not only owns Linux, but that could also qualify them as owning BSD as well as anything that even closely resembles UNIX in one way or another. They might even be able to lay claim to parts of every operating system out there so long as that OS borrowed concepts from UNIX (or BSD, Linux, etc.) Doesn't Windows have code copied from BSD too? Or maybe that is what Microsoft "lisenced" already...

FSF disagrees with Parens (4, Interesting)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751116)

The Caldera license Parens cites as allowing the use of code in Linux does no such thing, according the FSF. It is similar to the original BSD license, which is NOT GPL-compatible, according to FSF, because of the advertising clause.

Best Explanation of SCO's Actions (0, Redundant)

tiny69 (34486) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751118)

Torvalds: They are smoking crack.

A good quote. (4, Insightful)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751128)

Linus says:

Hey, until they can be bothered to show something real, I don't think it's even worth discussing.


I agree with the guy. There are three SCO stories on the front page right now. Do we really need to debate SCO's every (rather predictable) move? This is worse than the days when every other story was a dupe.

Sorry Bruce..... (1)

vertical_98 (463483) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751130)

As many people complain about having to read about SCO, at 24 comments your site was damn near dead. I hope your server survives.

Thanks for making the Slide show available. Some of us knew SCO was smoking crack, just as Linus stated.

Vertical

Tarnished his reputation... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751133)

"The Linux version of BPF is not an obfuscation of the BPF code. It is a clean-room re-implementation of BPF by Jay Schulist of the Linux developers, sharing none of the original source code, but carefully following the documentation of the Lab's product." They have tarnished Jay's reputation, accusing him of stealing code, poor guy must be loosing sleep over this. I see grounds for litigation...

Best. Quote. Ever. (0, Redundant)

yelligsc (451575) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751136)

"Torvalds: They are smoking crack."

Awesome.

I *Just* Read That... (0)

thelizman (304517) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751143)

...and promptly spewed beer all over my desktop...

Nah, McBride's no crackhead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751190)

His problem is that he's been wearing his Official Mormon Underwear so tight that it's cut off the flow of blood to his brain.

How do you pronounce SCO? (1)

SonicBurst (546373) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751141)

Most people know that SCO is Santa Cruz Operation, but how do you say SCO? I ask, because Perens writes

"An SCO presentation shown in Las Vegas"...

implying that he just says the letters, saying it like ess-see-ohh, but I've always said (as well as all of my colleagues) it as a word, sounding like "skoh". Stupid post, and way offtopic, but I'd be interested in the replies!

Re:How do you pronounce SCO? (2, Funny)

WTFmonkey (652603) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751150)

I usually say SCO, as in SCOTUM

Re:How do you pronounce SCO? (5, Funny)

Repugnant_Shit (263651) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751201)

No no, it's *spelled* S C O, but it's pronouned "ass hats"

I was getting worried... (2, Interesting)

Dr.Frankenstein (613122) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751151)

about the SCO case. Not because SCO's denial of service attack on commons sense was wearing me down, and not really because I thought IBM might drop the ball. Basically, my faith in the US legal system had sprung a leak and I truly feared the Chewbacca defense could actually work. Hey, stranger things have happened.

But after reading the Perens analysis (ya I know, against the rules to read the article) I can't possibly believe SCO has a case based on code infringement.

Now, it seems SCO's case will be an attack on software engineering itself. Any original code added to SCO's Unix code becomes the property of SCO? I am not a computer scientist (IANACS), but is it me or does this statement violate the entire known history of software development and licencing, including SCO's own corporate behavior?

I think Linus is right, they are smoking crack.

You missed one link, there.... (4, Informative)

Anthony Boyd (242971) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751155)

In Bruce's commentary, there was a link to an Infoworld article/interview with Bruce [infoworld.com] . It's pretty good. Bruce disputes SCO's claims, and the reporter didn't minimize/trivialize it. Coupled with the eWeek interview, I think we might stand a fighting chance in the court of public opinion.

If only I had some extra money... (1)

kscd (414074) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751157)

to short SCOX. Can anyone believe they're still at over $10? They just seem to be going crazy releasing PR newswires to crows out the other news on their stock...

Re:If only I had some extra money... (1)

suchire (638146) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751195)

How much money do you need to short? All you need to pay is commission, right?

Re:If only I had some extra money... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6751202)

You still can't do this, haven't been able to for a long long time, no one will back it, no one will back it, no one will back it it's been brought in every sco article so far and you still can't do this

well duh! (1)

josepha48 (13953) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751182)

I'm not suprised. But this just goes to show you the problem with the BSD license vs the GPL. In the BSD anyone can do pretty much anything they want to it, and not tell you about it. The GPL requires that you also give the source.

It seems BOTH MS and SCO would be happier if Linux was BSD licensed instead of GPL.

How to handle SCO (5, Insightful)

dillon_rinker (17944) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751183)

This came up in the recent Samba discussion, but I think it's worth reiterating.

If you have hold the copyright on any GPL code that SCO is distributing, sue SCO. They have stated that they do not intend to be bound by the GPL; their actions show that they do not plan to adhere to the terms of the GPL. It is reasonable to believe that they intend to violate the license (indeed, I think they have already). I think it would be reasonable to seek an injunction against SCO to prevent them from redistributing your code unless they agree that the GPL is valid and they are bound by it.

Imagine a beowulf cluster of lawsuits, hackers in jurisdictions all around the USA (or around the world) filing suit against SCO. Their stock price will plummet - that's a language they'll understand. They will be forced to respond.

What are the possible outcomes? These come to mind off the top of my head:

- They capitulate and agree publicly that the GPL is valid and they intend to adhere to it in redistributing GPL software. Major PR victory for free software.

- They agree to stop redistributing GPL software because they agree that the GPL is valid. Major PR victory for free software; major loss for SCO because they then have no viable product. This seems unlikely. Without product, SCO's sole source of income is lawsuits. Furthermore, in acknowledging the validity of the GPL, they open themselves up to further lawsuits seeking damage for their violating the GPL (which I think it is clear they have, in DEMANDING fees for GPL software). Their stock price plummets.

- They refuse to acknowledge the validity of the GPL. A judge (or judges) grant injunctive relief and force them to stop redistributing GPL software, affirming the validity of the GPL. Minor PR victory for free software. SCO no longer has products to distribute. This seems unlikely simply because I don't think SCO would go this far; again, without product to sell, their stock price plummets.

- Other companies avoid dealing in or distributing GPL software, fearing a Beowulf cluster of lawsuits. This seems quite possible; care must be taken in pointing out that suits are filed ONLY because SCO has violated and has stated their intention to violate the terms of the license.

So head down to your local library and check out a couple of legal texts. Find out how to file a copyright infringement suit in federal court in your jurisdictin. Learn to use "Whereas" in a sentence. Pay the filing fee, and pay a process server to Fed-Ex a letter to SCO to let them know they're being sued. Specify damages if you wish, but the goal (IMHO) is their acknowledgement of the validity of the GPL.

Most importantly, publicize what you've done; email every Linux news site out there, as well as major tech news sites. Get the information out there where the mainstream tech and stock analysts can find it and be disturbed at the liability that SCO has incurred in declaring that they do not intend to abide by the GPL.

SCO goes Ooops (1)

Gyorg_Lavode (520114) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751184)

SCO should have backed down before they had suits filed against them. The more facts come out and the more SCO management opens it's lips, the more likely it seems that they don't have a leg to stand on. They should have gotten out of it before suits were filed against them, but with Big Blue and redhat filing against them, I can only see them losing miserably and providing a legal precident for the open source community. I can understand the pump and dump but they really don't know how to pick their fights.

Interesting... (1)

Seismologist (617169) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751197)

vnuet has an interesting tidbit about SCO vs RedHat, specifically how SCO wanted to suckup to RedHat... Does it have something todo with RH's market share? http://www.vnunet.com/News/1142812

Poor SCO pointy-haired-bosses... (5, Insightful)

LinuxParanoid (64467) | more than 11 years ago | (#6751200)


Poor SCO pointy-haired-bosses... I can see it now (names omitted to protect the guilty):

-------------------

PHB1: "Hey PHB2, I'm putting together this PowerPoint. I suppose I should slap some code in there to make this suit look more legit."
PHB2: "Yeah, good idea." (PHB2 goes to Etrade to dump a bit more stock)
PHB1: "I've got this copied code the IPI [Intellectual Property Investigative --ed] Team passed on to me, but Legal says we can't release it."
PHB2: "Yeah, $600 an hour to tell us we can't disclose it to the press and claim it's top-secret priceless intellectual property at the same time."
PHB1: "No kidding." (pause) "You ever seen code like this?"
PHB2: "Linux hippies. I dunno, it's all greek to me."
PHB1: "Genius! What a brilliant idea, I'll show those hackers the code in Greek!"
PHB2: "Hey, you're good..."
(peck, peck, peck)

--LP ;-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?