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!

More on SCO Code Snippets

michael posted about 11 years ago | from the no-truthfulness-in-them-at-all dept.

Caldera 339

anoopsinha writes "A story in linuxworld reports that SCO itself has no idea what the history of a particular snippet of code might be - even a high profile snippet like the one SCO highlighted at SCO Forum. Having no idea if its claims have merit has not stopped SCO so far, so we can expect more from SCO along the lines of big claims with no merit."

cancel ×

339 comments

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

Doesn't matter (5, Funny)

Locky (608008) | about 11 years ago | (#6955636)

Seems to me like they can get away with showing greek code anyway.

Re:Doesn't matter (4, Funny)

Sir Pallas (696783) | about 11 years ago | (#6955653)

It's all Greek to them.

Re:Doesn't matter (3, Insightful)

yoshi_mon (172895) | about 11 years ago | (#6955655)

Mostly because I'm sure there are no real geeks working for SCO anymore. None that are worth a damn proably.

I invision that building being a bunch of yes men and raid attack lawers who have the combigned morals of Stalin, Goering, and Ghengis Kahn all rolled up into one.

Oh, you said greek! Well, what I said still holds true.

Re:Doesn't matter (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955785)

Mostly because I'm sure there are no real geeks working for SCO anymore. None that are worth a damn proably.

I invision that building being a bunch of yes men and raid attack lawers who have the combigned morals of Stalin, Goering, and Ghengis Kahn all rolled up into one.

Oh, you said greek! Well, what I said still holds true.


Actually, "greek" hints that it's worse: they're Mormon frat boys! Horny, stupid, and not allowed to liquor up, they're spoiling for a fight.

The Oracle Speaks (fp?) (4, Insightful)

pr0ntab (632466) | about 11 years ago | (#6955639)


SCO needs an Eric or a Bruce and they can't get one.


Mr. Nauvek [linuxworld.com] isn't kidding,
SCO's press releases are just echoing back what Perens, or what that Groklaw guys say in
twisted words.
Let's just not talk about SCO anymore. We're just giving them ideas for press releases that pump up their stock price.

Re:The Oracle Speaks (fp?) (4, Insightful)

WCMI92 (592436) | about 11 years ago | (#6955649)

SCO just cares about punping it's stock, which execs continue to sell...

Considering that SCOX was a penny stock before this lawsuit... Well, do the math.

SCO has no care about winning their suit. A weakness of the US legal system is they can make their claims based on the virtue that they HAVE sued.

Unless the trial judge is Lewis Kaplan of DECSS fame, I can't see SCO winning.

Re:The Oracle Speaks (fp?) (2, Funny)

Jhon (241832) | about 11 years ago | (#6955761)

SCO needs an Eric or a Bruce and they can't get one.
They may be short of Erics and Bruces, but they sure have a lot of Gumbys [adventurecollective.com] .

Re:The Oracle Speaks (fp?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955774)

My brain hurts!

Now... (5, Insightful)

stevezero (620090) | about 11 years ago | (#6955640)

Now might be a good time to short that SCO stock

Re:Now... (4, Insightful)

ari_j (90255) | about 11 years ago | (#6955697)

Every day is a good day to short SCO stock.

You'd be Broke (4, Insightful)

blunte (183182) | about 11 years ago | (#6955858)

If you had been shorting SCOX all this time.

They're around $18 right now. In May they were in the $3s.

Feast your eyes on this lovely chart [pcquote.com] .

SCO is doing what Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, and so many other companies have done. They do absolutely anything, legal or not, ethical or not, to pump that stock. And keep in mind that for the stock to trade higher and higher means that people have been standing in line to buy it. Those asses share some of the blame. It's just a bunch of people trading, overall, lots of the world's time, energy, and money, for a little personal gain.

Fuck them.

Fuck McBride [caldera.com] . His method of improving SCO's business here brings into serious question the supposed successes he ha d at other companies.

Speaking of the snake, does anyone have personal information on him? It would be a real shame if he personally were to receive indications of the world's negative feelings about him...

Shorting stocks... (5, Informative)

metatruk (315048) | about 11 years ago | (#6955698)

Just in case someone doesn't understand this and wants to know more about what "shorting" a stock means:

http://www.fool.com/FoolFAQ/FoolFAQ0033.htm [fool.com]

Re:Now... (5, Funny)

Unoriginal Nick (620805) | about 11 years ago | (#6955709)

Now might be a good time to not take investmest advice from a stranger on a website.

Re:Now... (1)

PetWolverine (638111) | about 11 years ago | (#6955833)

Great. Now, which stranger's advice do I take?

I think I'll take the grandparent poster's suggestion, and discard that of the parent poster. That way, there's no contradiction.

Re:Now... (1)

RevSmiley (226151) | about 11 years ago | (#6955737)

No now would be a wonderful time to short SCO's management at the knees. This is whole SCO induced farce well past an outrage.

Re:Now... (1)

dracocat (554744) | about 11 years ago | (#6955846)

I shorted SCOX [yahoo.com] 3 months ago you insensitive clod!

kill mcbride (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955643)

lets give sime new meaning for retribution against frivolous lawsuits

Re:kill mcbride (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955682)

Mod this garbage down.

I can't believe this shit got a +1 Insightful. Revenge? SCO may be the armpit of the asshole, but a +1 insightful for saying "let's go out and kill someone as blah blah blah..."

No Idea (5, Insightful)

snipingkills (250057) | about 11 years ago | (#6955644)

So now they admit that they had no idea about the validity of their own claims. Why is this not surpising?

Re:No Idea (5, Insightful)

FrozenDownload (687199) | about 11 years ago | (#6955660)

So now they admit that they had no idea about the validity of their own claims. Why is this not surpising?

As far as I could tell after reading the whole article, they did not actually admit anything. The writer of the article is just coming to that conclusion via other evidence.

Re:No Idea (2, Interesting)

FrozenDownload (687199) | about 11 years ago | (#6955669)

damn preview, i meant they did not actually admit anything as far as validity of their ip claims. Just history.

Re:No Idea (3, Insightful)

ppanon (16583) | about 11 years ago | (#6955868)

If they can't show the source of the code snippets - the history - then they can't prove the direction of code copying. It could as easily have been SCO that copied from Linux, or from another common source such as BSD or (in this case) SGI. SCO should be able to use a code version repository to track checkins and changes and compare them to equivalent dates in the Linux CVS to show the snippets came from SCO. If they can't do that, then the judge should summarily dismiss the case.

I'm not sure how McBride and co. hope to keep their ill-gotten gains after the shareholder lawsuit that's bound to arise from this. Maybe they're shuffling the money into numbered offshore accounts. I suppose it's expecting too much to imagine reprisals from the SEC or criminal fraud charges, given how Enron, Worldcom, et al turned out. <sarcasm>Yep, the potential for false reporting and stock market manipulation has really decreased and a return of investor confidence will happen real soon now.</sarcasm>

Summary of SCO IP claims (5, Funny)

Empiric (675968) | about 11 years ago | (#6955647)

"So, you see... we're associated with a Unix, and, you're associated with a Unix... well, you're financial obligations here should be obvious."

Dangerous? (-1)

Pres. Ronald Reagan (659566) | about 11 years ago | (#6955650)

Isn't it dangerous for these code snippets to be out in the public? What if something from one of them is accidentally included in an open source project; SCO might then have a legit claim.

What threw me (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955651)

  1. SCO shows code snippets to stockholders and says "here are infringing code snippets"
  2. People actually look at code snippets, point out they are non-infringing
  3. SCO says "Well, THAT was not an example of an INFRINGING code snippet. It was just an example of a code snippet. We haven't shown you the REAL infringing code snippets yet, but they're doozies."
  4. There are no ill effects to SCO whatsoever from the fact they showed non-infringing code snippets to their investors and to the press and presented them as infringing code snippets whatsoever, SCOs investors remain unaware of this, and little to no-one in the "mainstream" (non-geek) press covers this.
WTF????

Re:What threw me (4, Interesting)

rjch (544288) | about 11 years ago | (#6955707)

WTF????
Short version, this fits in to the context that all too many companies do nowadays. Certainly here in .au, I've heard the criticism of the major investment houses not thinking through the issues before voting (or proxying their votes) at a shareholders meeting. The large trading houses are not thinking in terms of "is this good for the company?", they're taking only the most cursory looks at the issue and trusting what the board tells them.

Re:What threw me (1)

Negative Response (650136) | about 11 years ago | (#6955727)

Sorry to be a dick, but it actually fits well:

5. PROFIT!!!

Re:What threw me (1)

dosius (230542) | about 11 years ago | (#6955729)

5. Stock prices go up
6. SCOrdure execs sell off
7. ???
8. Profit!!!

Oh, sorry, but someone had to say it... ;) After all, this does appear to be the case from my own observations.

-uso.

Re:What threw me (1)

RoLi (141856) | about 11 years ago | (#6955782)

Exactly my thoughts. In my opinion, it's just a matter of time when the SCO stock-bubble will burst.

I guess that most investors just gamble.

Re:What threw me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955824)

The answer. [slashdot.org]

Aristocracy needs no explanation. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955652)

A lord has a complaint against a serf, who's to question the lord?

We've a stock market symbol, a cadre of lawyers, who are these people to question the motives taken on behalf of the shareholders?

Off with their fucking heads!

Re:Aristocracy needs no explanation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955811)

Troll? Ouch.

Irony is wasted on the stupid [reference.com]

In other news (5, Funny)

RinzeWind (413873) | about 11 years ago | (#6955664)

SCO claims Gibraltar.

Why not use linguists? (4, Interesting)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about 11 years ago | (#6955668)

Why not use systematic biologist or linguists?

The world is full of systematic biologists which uncover relationships (natural history) between organisms every day. The may use DNA, anatomy or even ethology. Why not have a group of them analysing the raw data. Their methods have now been adopted by several linguists.

But, the linguists problems differ from that of most biologists, there is much infiltration of words from various languages into one language, therewith obscuring the true relationship between languages.

Maybe these guys can use an "objective method" to deduce the origins of various code snippets.

Re:Why not use linguists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955687)

I used to date a systematic biologist once.

She was a good lay but not much fun to be around with.

Re:Why not use linguists? (4, Funny)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about 11 years ago | (#6955690)

Had you been a cunning linguist, she may had.

Re:Why not use linguists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955706)

I was. It just didn't work outside the bed. Living, that is - not being a cunning linguist.

Why not use BLAST? (5, Interesting)

TitaniumFox (467977) | about 11 years ago | (#6955712)

Hmm... I wonder if a modification of BLAST [nih.gov] would work. It looks for DNA (or protein) sequence homology of a given sample vs. the genome of an organism or many organisms.

It would be interesting to do something like take all the whitespace out from the source tree and tar all the files together and use it as a "genome" to BLAST snippits of (likewise "compressed") code snippits.

Normal (DNA) BLAST results return with a similarity ratio and go on to show where they are/aren't homologous. I'm not sure how it would deal with expanding the relatively small nucleotide "alphabet" to that of source code.

Hmmm..

Re:Why not use BLAST? (1)

TitaniumFox (467977) | about 11 years ago | (#6955740)

Forgot to mention that it also identifies sequences in gapped situations. That is, it will find sequences like so:

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP
vs.
ABCDEFG[200 non-matching]HIJKLMNOP

and identify that 'ABCDEFG' and 'HIJKLMNOP' are similar.

Re:Why not use linguists? (1)

itsnotatuumah (698670) | about 11 years ago | (#6955805)

Actually the relevant discipline here is philology, worked out by the scholars of Ancient Alexandria in the third century BC or so to clear out the crap from the manuscripts of Homer (the bigger the ms, the better the price, so people had an incentive to pump them up), much later adapted by linguists to work out the relationship between languages. Perens and Raymond seem to know the relevant methods, wherever they may have picked them up from.

There may be some good countersuits soon (5, Interesting)

kaltkalt (620110) | about 11 years ago | (#6955670)

It's clear that SCO has filed its suit against IBM with absolutely no chance of winning (much like the fox news vs al franken "fair and balanced" suit). Not only has SCO filed a frivilous suit (a civil cause of action to do so) but has made baseless threats causing undue emotional distress to many users of Linux. Once SCO's suit is dismissed, look for some really nice lawsuits right back at 'em from many different parties. Should make for good popcorn munching entertainment. If it were me, I would sue Darly McB individually, in his personal capacity, as well as SCO.

Re:There may be some good countersuits soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955680)

If it were me, I would sue Darly McB individually, in his personal capacity, as well as SCO.

Well it is you, and you're not gonna... so yeah. Who cares about this crap anyway.

Re:There may be some good countersuits soon (1)

kaltkalt (620110) | about 11 years ago | (#6955722)

I have not been threatened by SCO. So no, it is not. Were I to bring a suit against them, I would not have standing.

Re:There may be some good countersuits soon (1)

bobintetley (643462) | about 11 years ago | (#6955794)

...suit against IBM

Speaking of which, when reading IBM's subpoena, was anyone else reminded of that scene from "Airheads", like IBM were going "what other crazy crap can we ask for? A giant baby bottle, nude photos of Bea Arthur..."

Re:There may be some good countersuits soon (3, Interesting)

platypus (18156) | about 11 years ago | (#6955876)

About that subpoena, I really think people don't get the importance of that. AFAIK, it was never reported here on slashdot, and I didn't see a lot about it elsewhere.
But the content and adressee (Canopy, not SCO) really are the only sign what IBM seems to be up to. And I interpret it as they are going to make it ugly - as ugly as they can.
If I were someone at Canopy, I'd be very scared by the thought that this might be only the first manouver from IBM, and wonder what I'm in for next.
The possibilites are endless, maybe Canopy's most important companies (besides SCO, lol) are in for some patent problem talks at some point in the future.

Everyone is a Hypocrite (Torvalds, SCO, Slashdot) (0, Interesting)

Pavan_Gupta (624567) | about 11 years ago | (#6955673)

I don't think there is one person out there who believes that SCO is entirely telling the truth. In fact, I'm sure SCO would be hardpressed to admit that they're telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth -- but on some level that's just how corporate America works. Yet, my point isn't about how SCO is the worst scum to hit the news since Bush was elected -- I'm trying to point out that the open source community is largely responsible for the snowball affect that this overhyped SCO story has receieved.

I've been quietly reviewing the various components of this story as they arise (especially since Slashdot is following it so closely), and I remember vividly reading Torvalds resposne to SCO's open letter, which seems so very odd. SCO is giving the open source community a look at the problems in the code, and if SCO is telling the truth, they have every right to expect some level of damages. It's hard for the people that leech off the hard work of others to understand that it does cost money to make things (music, linux, etc.) I believe that Torvalds, Lessig, and others are just out there trying to fight to make GNU-moral-efficacy more of a real thing, but frankly, the time has come to actually step up and figure out what's going on.

We're hypocrites to believe that SCO is the only reason this question continues to be in the news. SCO is garbage now, but why do we have to taint the good will of our open source community by making them look like they want to prolong this idiotic fight.

I'm just searching for an end to this BORING battle.

WTF? Moderators..? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955694)

First off, you fail to explain or indicate why you think Linus Tourvalds is being hypocritical.

SCO is giving the open source community a look at the problems in the code

This is a flat-out lie.

the time has come to actually step up and figure out what's going on.

"The open source community" has TRIED, time and time again, to figure out what is going on. SCO will not *tell* anyone. The Linux developers community WANTS to have the copyright issues resolved. However, they cannot read SCO's mind! There is a clear and documented method of dealing with copyright infringements in the linux kernel; the time and source of all contributions is logged, and if at any point someone identifies infringing code it can be noted as such and removed. HOWEVER: The linux community cannot remove SCO's code unless they know what it is!!! SCO ardently refuses to give any indication what this mystery code is.

The fact they seem intent on preventing the linux developers from gaining the information of what to remove to fix the infringement has led some to believe this code does not exist.

the people that leech off the hard work of others

Who do you refer to here?

Re:WTF? Moderators..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955699)

the time and source of all contributions is logged, and if at any point someone identifies infringing code it can be noted as such and removed. HOWEVER: The linux community cannot remove SCO's code unless they know what it is!!!

But how can you have "the time and source of all contributions logged" and at the same time claim that you do not know if there is infringing code?!

A-ha!

Re:WTF? Moderators..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955715)

Huh?

But how can you have "the time and source of all contributions logged" and at the same time claim that you do not know if there is infringing code?!

If there is infringing code in linux, it is because someone donated it to linux and passed it off as their own work. If the linux community has tainted code it is becuase and only becuase they were lied to. I do not see at all how people have problems grasping this concept.

The use of the time and source of all contributions is that allegedly infringing code can be checked for source. If the source was an SCO employee or SCO code licensee, it becomes likely the code was stolen; even if not, investigation can be made. However, if someone sends in code they claim to have written to the linux kernel, there is NOT any way for the linux contributors to tell whether this person is telling the truth or not. Again: they can't read minds.

Re:WTF? Moderators..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955781)

Your arguments would only help SCO to make their point that businesses should not embrace open source: anyone can contribute to the source code and lay in legal landmines because there's no legal department to check and license 3rd party IP.

Yes, yes. I know that finding infringing code becomes possible only if the code is public in the first place, but that's not how the suits will see it.

Re:WTF? Moderators..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955804)

Your arguments would only help GNU to make their point that businesses should not embrace closed source: any employee of propeitary software companies can contribute stolen code to the source code and lay in legal landmines because there's no public documentation of the code for either the actual owners of the code or the customers of the propeitary product to discover code has been infringed.

Yes, yes. I know that finding infringing code in propeitary software only becomes possible if someone interested in pointing out the infringement has access to the code, but that's not going to matter to the law if by some chance an infringement is found.

Re:WTF? Moderators..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955808)

Your arguments would only help SCO to make their point that businesses should not embrace open source: anyone can contribute to the source code and lay in legal landmines because there's no legal department to check and license 3rd party IP.

So what you're saying is that someone would plant a illegal piece of code, sign their name to that illegal piece of code.. their ip, email address etc etc.. and then wait to be caught?

Re:WTF? Moderators..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955826)

So what you're saying is that someone would plant a illegal piece of code, sign their name to that illegal piece of code.. their ip, email address etc etc.. and then wait to be caught?

No. There would be no illegal piece of code if all licenses for any 3rd party software are run through the legal department.

In open source there is no such safeguard.

Re:WTF? Moderators..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955796)

If the linux community has tainted code it is becuase and only becuase they were lied to.

Do you think a "they lied to us, your honor"-argument would fly in court? I think not. The real world does not work on honor and especially in business it's safe to assume that people will always lie if it is to their benefit.

If you're intent on using 3rd party code, it's your responsibility to check that it's not infringing anybody else's rights. I would not buy such code for my company unless the 3rd party can provide evidence of their ownership over the code.

To provide such an audit trail, it's better to keep all code locked up and only (cross)license its use with legally binding contracts.

Re:WTF? Moderators..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955810)

If you're intent on using 3rd party code, it's your responsibility to check that it's not infringing anybody else's rights

How?

Re:WTF? Moderators..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955819)

Legal contracts. They show you a legally binding, signed contract that says that they have bought the rights for the code and under what terms the code is licensed.

No such system exists for open source because you cannot buy rights for open code. Hence, IP cannot be enforced properly.

Re:WTF? Moderators..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955844)

Legal contracts. They show you a legally binding, signed contract that says that they have bought the rights for the code and under what terms the code is licensed.

What happens if the linux project adopts this, but a person who donates code and signs the contract did not actually create the code they have claimed in the contract to have created? It seems to me this is still just as possible.

Incidentally, code under the umbrella of the GNU project does in fact follow this exact strategy you suggest. The linux kernel does not, however, and it is the point of contention in this whole ... thing.

Re:WTF? Moderators..? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955834)

If you're intent on using 3rd party code, it's your responsibility to check that it's not infringing anybody else's rights. I would not buy such code for my company unless the 3rd party can provide evidence of their ownership over the code.

Microsoft Corporation sometimes uses code from the BSD operating system in their products. Under the terms of the BSD license, this is legal. However, the BSD operating systems are large-scale open source projects which many people have contributed to. This project does not have itemized, notarized documentation of the exact, definite author of every single line of code. Therefore, Microsoft cannot prove that the code in their operating system is legal to distribute.

Would your company be willing to license code from Microsoft under their shared source program, knowing this?

Re:WTF? Moderators..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955724)

"The open source community" has TRIED, time and time again, to figure out what is going on. SCO will not *tell* anyone. The Linux developers community WANTS to have the copyright issues resolved. However, they cannot read SCO's mind!

Did you forget the SCO is allowing people to look at the code under a NDA? Don't go crying that the NDA is bad because no one else can know, it's just an appropriate way to keep SCO's claims in secret until the legal matters have been settled. It's far more effective if SCO's claims are revelead in court than if they're revealed on the linux developer's mailing list.

the people that leech off the hard work ofothers

I believe he was reffering to how people just expect SCO's claims to be false, without knowing anything about them, because they like the idea of not worrying about paying for things. If this is SCO's fault, than so be it, but still, how can people decide how meritorious SCO's claims are if they claim to have not seen them.

The fact they seem intent on preventing the linux developers from gaining the information of what to remove to fix the infringement has led some to believe this code does not exist.

I believe they are intent on preserving the problem for as long as possible, because they want to maximize gains on their lawsuits. Isn't that the purpose of corporate america? It's bad, but it's bussiness. Cry me a river if you don't like it.

Re:WTF? Moderators..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955757)

Don't go crying that the NDA is bad because no one else can know, it's just an appropriate way to keep SCO's claims in secret until the legal matters have been settled

Anyone who would claim this has not read the terms of SCO's NDA. [linuxjournal.com] First, The NDA would ban you from discussing, ever again, with anyone, the documents shown to you even if they turned out to be non-infringing. Second, SCO openly said that even under NDA, they would not show a totality of the infringing code, so the NDA would not help. Lastly, any allegations by SCO you had violated the NDA would require you to fly to Utah. Someone under this NDA would be hampered to the point where they would be (a) incapable of significantly investigating whether the code shown by SCO as allegedly infringing was, in fact, infringing (b) serverely hampered from working on the linux kernel in future.

I believe he was reffering to how people just expect SCO's claims to be false, without knowing anything about them, because they like the idea of not worrying about paying for things

I expect SCO's claims to be false because I believe in the principle that people accused of a crime, such as copyright infringement, are innocent until proven guilty. I will continue to consider SCO's claims to be utterly false, and refuse to accept the idea they could be true, until they show me one single shred of evidence that their claims are true. If they provide any evidence, any at all, I will *begin* to consider they are correct. However, with no evidence, I will refuse to consider the ideas that SCO's claims about infringing code in linux are true; that Elvis is alive; that John F. Kennedy was assasinated by the Mormons; that a race of superintelligent 40-foot rats live on the moon; or that the Timecube theory is true.

Cry me a river if you don't like it.

We are already following this exact plan. Have you not been reading slashdot?

Re:WTF? Moderators..? (2, Informative)

dipipanone (570849) | about 11 years ago | (#6955825)

Don't go crying that the NDA is bad because no one else can know, it's just an appropriate way to keep SCO's claims in secret until the legal matters have been settled.

In what possible universe is this appropriate? Firstly, given the fact that SCO's suit is one in which they are claiming their IP is breached, it would be impossible for open source developers to look at the code under an NDA without then laying themselves open to other similar suits from SCO. Therefore SCO know that no serious Open Source developer is going to take them up on this.

I believe they are intent on preserving the problem for as long as possible, because they want to maximize gains on their lawsuits

It doesn't work that way I'm happy to say. Damages are awarded on the basis of the financial consequences suffered. The plaintiff has an obligation to try and mitigate those losses, and in this case, that would include informing those people it believes are responsible (i.e. linux developers) of exactly which sections of code violate their copyright in order that they can do something about fixing it.

Of course, the truth is that SCO can't do this because they don't actually have a lawsuit against any linux developers -- aside from IBM and their action against IBM is for breach of contract. They've made a lot of accusations, but from where I sit, those are just a lot of bluster being used as a misdirection to facilitate their shakedown.

That may be your idea of business, but it's an extremely risky gamble when you're proposing to go up against Big Blue in court. Personally, I think Darl McBride's sphincter has gone into a spastic spasm since he realized that IBM are going to call his bluff. All SCO have left now is the stock price scam so why would he want it resolving any time soon?

Re:WTF? Moderators..? (2, Insightful)

abertoll (460221) | about 11 years ago | (#6955788)

EXACTLY. More to the point, in the traditional system, a company has a distinct motive for stealing code--to make more money/gain market share. While I'm not saying Linux doesn't make money, there are some differences behind the philosophies and how this works.

With proprietary software, you don't see the code. If you steal code, you have a better chance of getting away with it AND you can be more competitive.

With open source software everyone gets to see what you've done! That's the rule! There is more motive to create your own code or use other open sourced code under this system than taking it illegally. Doing so is more harmful than good.

Re:Everyone is a Hypocrite (Torvalds, SCO, Slashdo (0, Troll)

mondoterrifico (317567) | about 11 years ago | (#6955725)

Wow, nice troll!

Re:Everyone is a Hypocrite (Torvalds, SCO, Slashdo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955735)

The irony is too strong here.

Re:Everyone is a Hypocrite (Torvalds, SCO, Slashdo (1)

I_redwolf (51890) | about 11 years ago | (#6955767)

Torvalds resposne to SCO's open letter, which seems so very odd.

What's odd about asking where the infringing code is and trying to figure out what SCO is talking about? I don't think there is anything odd about saying to your accuser what is it that I have done. If SCO is telling the truth the simple fact is they can still receive damages. So not only will the infringing and stolen code be removed from the kernel but they will also receive damages from the person(s) who put it there.

We aren't hypocrites, it's a really simple thing. It doesn't have to be in the news or even go to court. SCO just has to say "line/number file.c" has infringing code please remove the code asap. Then they take their proof of infringing code and request damages. It'd also be alot quicker than the current way they are doing things.

I don't think you actually understand the situation. Obviously no offense but you should re-read the actual case vs IBM and then what SCO itself has said over the couple of months to entirely grasp the confusing "blather" coming from SCO.

Re:Everyone is a Hypocrite (Torvalds, SCO, Slashdo (2, Funny)

NickFortune (613926) | about 11 years ago | (#6955772)

I'm just searching for an end to this BORING battle.
... and as I'm sure we all agree, keeping you entertained is far and away the most important aspect of the case.

Let me put it on a level you understand... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955780)

"SCO is giving the open source community a look at the problems in the code..."

My kids watch a show on Nick or TV Land or something, and its called "Dexter's Laboratory". Dexter uses a line over and over which seems to suit you very well...

"You are Stuuuuu-pid"

You said you have been "quietly reviewing". Let me suggest you go back to that mode.

Bit full of ourselves aren't we? (5, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | about 11 years ago | (#6955684)

So, for all purposes, it's safe to say SCO and its crack legal team just can't do the deeper historical analysis needed here. Would a junior programmer be able to produce the findings that the open source community can? No way. Such an individual simply would not have the depth of historical knowledge to know where to look.

This is a rather daft assumption. The junior programmer doesn't need to know the history of the code. Simply that the code is the same. Then all he needs to do is compare it with BSD and any other publically available kernels to eliminate any that may have had a common ancestry. The rest of the work could be left to someone who's good at researching in books,

And there's no reason that SCO couldn't hire someone with "depth of historical knowledge to know where to look". Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond aren't the only people with this knowledge. We don't know what SCO are doing, or what they're planning. Their public statements may be misleading simply because they don't want to show their hand. The code they did show may have been a gamble that didn't pay off. There may still be many lines of code that were stolen from SCO Unix.

Re:Bit full of ourselves aren't we? (1)

BurritoWarrior (90481) | about 11 years ago | (#6955845)

The code they did show may have been a gamble that didn't pay off. There may still be many lines of code that were stolen from SCO Unix.

There may also be:

1. My butt
2. Pigs
3. Pigs that fly out of my butt

SCO's claims fall under #3.

The REAL story (2, Funny)

dipipanone (570849) | about 11 years ago | (#6955856)

it's safe to say SCO and its crack legal team

I always knew it wasn't just Darl who was smoking the stone here. I knew the lawyers had to be suffering from paranoia and cocaine psychosis as well.

My theory is that this whole law suit came about following one particularly heavy night hitting the pipe. When McBride, Sontag, Boies etc. began to get that familiar disturbing feeling of having maggots burrowing beneath their skin, one of them proposed that the running the GNU debugger might be the best way to get rid of them.

When that didn't work, in their crack-addled minds, they decided that they were going to make developers of free software pay for their drug-induced distress, and so targeted the GNU/Linux system for this lawsuit.

Do we really know? (4, Insightful)

abertoll (460221) | about 11 years ago | (#6955689)

Do we really know how likely SCO's claims are to be true? Personally, I think that the Linux community is pretty proud of having "done it themselves" and doesn't want to use SCO's code at all. In fact, it's a very bad thing for the GPL if people put code under the GPL illegally.

The only way people will trust open source is to trust the open source developers. As more and more people are warming up to the idea that "free software isn't junk" the last thing needed is for consumers and companies to think that it was all done using someone else's code.

Surprise (1, Funny)

WhaDaYaKnow (563683) | about 11 years ago | (#6955691)

A story in linuxworld reports that SCO itself has no idea what the history of a particular snippet of code might be

You have GOT to be shitting me.

Now You've Done It (-1, Troll)

Saint Stephen (19450) | about 11 years ago | (#6955700)

I am officially excluding "Caldera" from my Topics. I'll only see the occasional zany rubbish the rest of the media prints about this garbage, but that's better than the non-stop 16-ton weight this has become.

See you on the other side.

Re:Now You've Done It (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955840)

See you on the other side.

When your head comes out of your mouth?

Hope and wishful thinking (1)

iamacat (583406) | about 11 years ago | (#6955704)

When I first read this, I thought they wish their code was good enough to copy. Or maybe its exactly what the author meant?

History Repeated (3, Insightful)

trolman (648780) | about 11 years ago | (#6955705)

SCO should be afraid of identifying any more code because they would have no earthly idea what the history of the code might turn out to be. Court will be a nightmare of surprises for SCO - just like SCO Forum.

This is a lawyer' dream retirement project...at least until SCO runs out of cash. Since this is a public company the Feds and State can get involved and end this non-sense er I mean string it out for years with no meaningful outcome.

Those that do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. [umich.edu]

Logic... (0, Troll)

leomekenkamp (566309) | about 11 years ago | (#6955708)

"Well, at SCO Forum, there were some folks that came out and basically sniffed out some of the [disputed System V] code we were showing and [concluded] that it emanated from SGI." That this code "emanated" from SGI was news to SCO.

I'm not trying to be a troll or anything, and I have this feeling that the SCO execs are full of it, but is this statement not a little bit thin to jump to the conclusion that SCO does not know the history of its own code? Could DMcB not intend to say with 'emanated' that that code emanated from SGI into the linux kernel? Then his statement would only involve linux history and SGI history, and not SCO's own.

Its funny (3, Interesting)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | about 11 years ago | (#6955713)

Its funny....I look at this whole SCO mess.....and I look forward to the end of it not so much to be done with it.....but just to see what sort of retaliation everybody attached will exact on them/Darl.

Code Snippets are a Red Herring (3, Insightful)

idiotnot (302133) | about 11 years ago | (#6955723)

SCO thought that exact code alignment could be used to sway the general public into accepting thier argument. It's backfiring, like so many of their tactics.

But the real crux of their argument is that *every* modern OS violates their "Intellectual Property" (bad phrase) rights stemming from SysV Unix.

That includes the BSD's.
That includes Windows.

Every OS that does basically what you could with SysV Unix is in violation, whether there's code sharing or not. It's a very disturbing concept, and the implications are chilling. It is absolutely imperitive that SCO lose this case.

Re:Code Snippets are a Red Herring (2, Insightful)

Dieppe (668614) | about 11 years ago | (#6955750)

SCO thought that exact code alignment could be used to sway the general public...

The only problem is the only people who care about the whole SCO crack-smoking-binge... is us bunch of geeks.

I tried explaining to my mom the other day as well as to my sister and I eventually gave up. Not that I couldn't explain it, but it's just too much to explain about GPL and Open Source and IP and company claims and Linus and "open letters" and everything...

Had to just throw my figurative hands in the air and say, "Well, they're just being idiots is all!" and left it at that.

*Includes myself in the bunch of geeks who care about SCO illicit claims... Also only us bunch of geeks who cares about RIAA, or online rights, or copyrights extended to eternity...

Point is...I'm just not sure the general public groks what's going on enough to even care!

Re:Code Snippets are a Red Herring (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955848)

Ask them them what they would do if a company tried to sue people for making chocolate chip cookies.

Cookies have been around for a long time and some relatively new company trying to claim ownership on them is obviously deceptive.

Baghdad McBride does it again. (5, Funny)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | about 11 years ago | (#6955726)

SCO cannot get away with this bull. SCO will not get away with this bull.

The question of code history is one I asked a *long* time ago; probably the first I heard of this SCO bs. I believe they wrote a little C program that crawls the source tree and looks for similar lines of code. Hell, I could write a program like that, make it compare two source trees that make up 10,000 lines of code, and have it print out that 1,000,000 of those 10,000 lines are identical. Just like the ad for PC-Lint in the programming magazines.

Darl McBride's silly little company is acting just like the idiot who was sitting in a cafe one day. When the waitress came to take his order, the man asked her to sign and date some official documents certifying that he had been in that cafe at that time and date, with records of what he ordered, how long he stayed, etc. The waitress was confused about this, but the man claimed that he was very paranoid of someday being framed of a crime, and therefore wanted a written alibi for every waking moment of his life. He shows the waitress a calendar book with exact notations of every step he had ever taken. Suddenly, the police storms into the establishment and asks the gentleman if he goes by such and such a name. He answers affirmatively. They asked him if he had been involved in a jewelry store robbery which took place at 1221 East West Street several nights prior, at 12:31 AM. As he had proof of everything he had ever done, he opened his book, flipped to the day and hour in question, and read aloud from his book, "Jewelry store robbery at 1221 East West Street, 12:31 AM." Before he realized what a stupid error he had made, the police snatched him and he was off to jail.

With that in mind, here is an open letter to SCO CEO Darl McBride:

Dear Darl,

I do not believe any of your company's claims. In fact, I believe quite the opposite: I believe that SCO's software is composed 100% of code your company deliberately stole from other companies. Because your company stole code from the Linux kernel, you later found that code and wrongly believe that the theft occured in the other direction. Further, I strongly believe that with your company's shoddy record keeping, you cannot prove the origin of your code, so it is therefore impossible to prove your false claims of its being misappropriated into Linux. I further believe that even if your company could produce such proof, the effects of doing so would be adverse for you, as the records would clearly indicate the thefts that SCO deliberately performed.

Oh yeah, and one other thing: In your poorly written, grammatically incorrect, misspelled "open letter" to the free software community, you deliberately took some quotes out of context. This was silly because the misquoted documents are readily available for all to see your blatent and stupid attempt. To demonstrate the effect of misquoting, I offer the following text, quoted directly from your letter:

My company, the SCO Group ... illegally copied ... the free Linux operating system. In doing this we ... adversely affect the ... credibility of ... SCO. SCO ... violates ... Linux ... intellectual property rights. This is improper. SCO ... has forfeited its rights to this code. SCO ... copyright ownership ... is null and void. SCO ... needs a business model that is sustainable, if it is to grow beyond a part-time avocation into an enterprise-trusted development model. Rather than fight for the right for free software ... I invite the Open Source community to ... fire off a "rant" ... across a negotiation table. [R]espect for intellectual property is not [an option]...

Best regards to all,

Darl McBride
CEO
The SCO Group

How does that feel, Darl?

Sincerely,

rice burners suck
Chief Karma Whore
Slashdot

Re:Baghdad McBride does it again. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955812)

How does that feel, Darl?

Thank you for providing the exhibit A352: "An incoherrent, vaguely threatening letter from a mentally disturbed open source advocate".

Re:Baghdad McBride does it again. (1)

dipipanone (570849) | about 11 years ago | (#6955864)

Thank you for providing the exhibit A352

Objection, your honour.

This exhibit is irrelevant and has no bearing on the case.

Re:Baghdad McBride does it again. (4, Insightful)

h00pla (532294) | about 11 years ago | (#6955843)

I actually feel sorry for McBride in a way. Not *really* sorry, of course. I say this because, as far as I know, he has not sold off any stock. All the people around him are making 6 figures off of it and he basically can't sell anything. He is the pillar holding up the house of cards for the Canopy Group and whoever else is making money off this (Microsoft??). This guy is essentially the bag boy - he's the one who's job it is to make his asinine claims while everybody else just sits back and laughs. (ie - the open source people laughing at the claims and the SCO stockholders laughing all the way to the bank). If you think about it, when this is over, good ole Darl's going to have worthless stock and essentially a very, very bad name. I would imagine that they (the Canopy Group) have planned to provide compensation to him some other way.

Re:Baghdad McBride does it again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955871)

All i have to say is, LOL, and ROTFL.

Thank you & btw this is a trol.

gotta love intentionally mispeled werdz :D

btw, did I say that i laughed my arse awf? :D

Where have the SCO programmers gone ? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955728)

If sco have to resort to an outside team (ex-MIT people), does this mean they have no internal programmers free to look at the code ? or does it mean they don't trust those that they do ?

Or is their single programmer tied up in trying to fix bugs in their existing products ? ;-)

Finally, MIT/Ex-MIT people, were they staff/lecturers, or just people that attended MIT ? What are their qualifications ?

I personally think this is an exercise in pumping the stock, and scaring someone enough that the will take over the company (and hope that they dont notice the cupboard is bare)

Re:Where have the SCO programmers gone ? (2, Funny)

RevSmiley (226151) | about 11 years ago | (#6955745)

Janitorial help of course.

This might matter ... (1)

Chromodromic (668389) | about 11 years ago | (#6955730)

... if SCO cared. But they don't. It's a business game, not a technology issue. What they care about is obfuscation, FUD, and legal maneuvering, not technical accuracy. Shouldn't that be fairly obvious by now?

Hey you losers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955738)

Last post niizzzz!!!

Time for the Internet Death Penalty (1, Flamebait)

heironymouscoward (683461) | about 11 years ago | (#6955743)

This is the only remaining option if we are to retain some kind of sanity.

The IDP, a total voluntary boycotting of all and any news surrounding SCO, implemented in as many online journals and newssites as possible, extended to newsgroups, emails, and any other source of discussion.

SCO were kinda amusing when there was no other news this summer, but like a playground bully, they are feeding off all the attention they get, and so I vote for the IDP.

For a start, I'd be mighty grateful if there was a SCO topic for /. so that I could exclude these stories for a start. If I wanted to watch insane pseudolegalistic gibberish I'd live in the States and watch TV.

Gimme an I, gimme a D, gimme a P, whatcha got? Internet Death Penalty, peace and quiet. Yeah...

Re:Time for the Internet Death Penalty (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955789)

A lot of people have been complaining about this SCO echo chamber thing, but they are missing a big point.

It does not matter how much slashdot, groklaw, memepool, kuro5hin or metafilter or whoever cover the SCO nonsense. Ignoring it, or covering it until it's blue in the face, will not help or hurt SCO's case.

The one and only thing that matters is: Are investment news sites, and the sites read by executives and people who buy stock, covering it?

Since these sites will *do* things like take press releases and reprint them without investigating the veracity of their content, yes, they are, and will no matter what we do. If all SCO-unfriendly (i would call this "is aware of the facts of the situation") news sites dropped their SCO coverage, press-release-friendly/sco-friendly news sources-- the ones executives and stockholders read-- would continue to run their stories. This would mean that the people who are causing SCO's stock to be pumped up would still be getting the constant source of PR (lies?) from SCO, but it would mean that there would be no dissenting voices elsewhere in the media.

Dissenting voices elsewhere in the media, if they *exist*, however, may eventually have the effect, eventually, somehow, of effecting the stock-news sites. Once this begins to happen, and the stock-news sites begin to report on the actual situation rather than SCO's single (imaginary?) side of the story, SCO's stock will be toast.

In the long run all that matters is getting SCO's stock price to drop, becuase all that matters to those fueling SCO's nonsense is getting it to rise...

There is such a thing as bad publicity.

Snippet (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955764)

Sometimes I wish I was a high profile snippet.

I smell rule 11 sanctions (4, Interesting)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | about 11 years ago | (#6955770)

From the sounds of it, SCO's attorneys have not properly investigated their case before filing a lawsuit. Where SCO's attorneys failed to properly investigate, they would be subject to rule 11 sanctions for filing a frivilous case. There was a case in California where an attorney was sanctioned over $500k for filing and continuing a frivilous case.


Not just that, IBM can go after SCO for intentional interference, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution.

Yawn... (1)

turboalberta (215280) | about 11 years ago | (#6955773)

Nobody actually getting bored by this?

Maybe SCO Knows What They're Doing (5, Insightful)

ryanisflyboy (202507) | about 11 years ago | (#6955806)

I'm not a SCO supporter by any means, but these guys [canopy.com] have a history of suing people and winning. I know we all asume that McBride is a moron, but what if he's actually clever. They could be "throwing" everyone off by making themselves look like idiots. Has it dawned on anyone that maybe the code snippets that were leaked were meant to be leaked? Perhaps they knew someone would be there with a camera and stick the pictures out on the Internet.

So while the community is thinking everything is just fine because SCO doesn't have jack, they are sitting on one or two really excellent examples of IP ownership they haven't released yet. This way when the code is released we will all be caught with our jaws gaping open and our feet stuffed into them. They are just down the street from me, I know some of these guys. They are slippery. The best way to kill a fox is not by chasing it.

Now maybe what they do have is small and can be replaced simply. That doesn't matter because on the phsycological front the open source / free software camp just took a hit. Unfortunatly it's too late to do anything about it.

I think a good approch is the "show us the code" approch. Not the "you must be an idiot smoking crack" approch. Hubris is a good thing when hacking code, but not when dealing with a bunch of lawyers. I urge a level headed course of action rather than a kick SCO's butt becuase there is no way we can be wrong action. Use caution - I promise there is an "Ace" up their sleave. Or at least a "Queen of Hearts". ;-)

They can have Bruce or Eric (5, Insightful)

veldstra (107520) | about 11 years ago | (#6955807)

There's a lot of issues surrounding this case, but let's start with the request for a Bruce Perens or Eric Raymond: These guys repeatedly offered they're assistance in looking at the code to identify any possibly infringing snippets, but they require that the NDA is dropped for them. SCO refuses to let them do this, seemingly afraid that the infringing snippets will 'disappear' from the kernel source, hence losing a case against all those commercial users of Linux they want to sue.

And to have all those people claiming it's pump and dump of SCO stock, think of this: Some execs have call options (right to buy at a certain price) that can't be exercised till somewhere in 2004. That means they have to keep the SCO stock price up till they can exercise the options. With a case like this, I wonder if that's possible: sooner or later the 'regular joe' catches on, and the stock will end up in a free-fall, and if printed on paper, making geek toilet paper (But that might make the demand among us geeks so high the price gets back up). Next to that, they sold quite some stock, but so far it's been in 5000 - 10000 chunks, While they own 10 - 20 times that much each. If they really wanted to get rich, they would dump it as fast as they could, and leave the country.

My guess is they started seriously believing they have a case, but now continue in order not to lose their face. I think McBride and his servants have lost a lot of sleep over this case by now, and will have a lot of sleepless nights in he near future.

Who wrote this article?? (1)

viware (680138) | about 11 years ago | (#6955815)

Did anyone else notice that the text kept sizing up as the article went down. Sorta puts a funky light on the whole thing...

A Slow Song and Dance (3, Insightful)

abertoll (460221) | about 11 years ago | (#6955823)

Sometimes I wonder why the courts don't just put SCO out of its misery...

I mean isn't it pretty apparent to everyone that these are some last rites? These are just theatrics as a last dying attempt in vengeance against their bane. I mean this makes SCO look really really awful as they writhe in agony, striking out as spitefully as they can at the IBM/Linux partnership.

I don't think anyone can take this whole charade seriously. I hope this abuse of the court system doesn't go unpunished. Has anyone ever considered how quickly things move along and get developed in the techological world? Does anyone see how grossly slow and inadequate the traditional court system is at handling things of this nature? With legal battles, appeals, loopholes, etc. by the time anyone wins a case they're looking at technology that older than dirt.

SCO Stands For (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6955829)

Sodomizing
Copyright
Offenders
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>