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 Demands Linux 2.7 Information

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the not-so-fast dept.

The Courts 410

dr_d_19 writes "According to Groklaw, SCO is now demanding IBM to turn over 'all documents concerning IBM's contributions to the Linux 2.7 kernel, including development work'. Of course, there is no 2.7 kernel and no plans at all to create one."

cancel ×

410 comments

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

Oh, there's a 2.7 kernel! (5, Funny)

Musteval (817324) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980482)

IBM just hasn't released it yet. Bastards.

Re:Oh, there's a 2.7 kernel! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980512)

Whatever

Re:Oh, there's a 2.7 kernel! (5, Funny)

aurb (674003) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980588)

Damn! Just finished compiling 2.6.14...

Re:Oh, there's a 2.7 kernel! (5, Funny)

nofx_3 (40519) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980600)

Your post has been recorded and will be used as evidence in our trial.
 
--SCO

Re:Oh, there's a 2.7 kernel! (5, Funny)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980635)

Looks like the best evidence SCO have ever had.

Re:Oh, there's a 2.7 kernel! (5, Funny)

Rei (128717) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980651)

Meanwhile, SCO has also requested that the court subpoena all conversations between IBM executives and the tooth fairy, citing the potential for disclosure and dissemination of Unix source code through pillow-related transactions.

Sounds hot... (4, Funny)

nathan s (719490) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980766)

Pillow transactions with the tooth fairy. Yeah baby!

Re:Oh, there's a 2.7 kernel! (4, Funny)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980801)

Well, then IBM should comply and promptly deliver a folder full of plain white paper, a bunch of blank CDs and perhaps about 100,000 new punch cards for the "full" effect.

sfd (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980484)

sdfdsf

Just silly... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980488)

Silly Computer Operators....

I.. can't.. resist.. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980489)

In Soviet Russia, the 2.7 Kernel develops you!

Okay . . . (5, Insightful)

failure-man (870605) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980490)

SCO does not, and has never had a firm grip on reality. This is news?

Re:Okay . . . (5, Interesting)

qortra (591818) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980611)

This request might not be as non-sensical as you think.

We all know that Linus prefers the bazaar style software development methodology, but there is no guarantee that IBM doesn't have cathedral style GPL'ed development going on. They might be preparing to drop new code in the next version of the Linux kernel (there will be another one eventually).

There are plenty of kernel drivers, filesystems, and whatnot that can be developed (or at least started) without a completely clear understanding of the upcoming kernel architecture (provided at least a few essentials are the same, such as the monolithic design).

Nevertheless, SCO is stupid; point taken.

Darl, your 15 minutes is up (-1, Flamebait)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980493)

Please die now.
Thanks, from all of us.

Re:Darl, your 15 minutes is up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980525)

This just in! Open-Source Zealots call for the death of Darl McBride!!1

Of course not ... (4, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980502)

Everyone knows that linus is going "corporate", and playing the version game.

Next linux versions according to the roadmap:

  1. Linux 3.0
  2. Linux 2k6
  3. Linux ZP

Lets hope that biff, darl, and kevin don't read slashdot, or the jig is up!

Re:Of course not ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980630)

I already have ZP running on my Quantum Optical Laptop. I'm posting this under CherryOS, too!

Re:Of course not ... (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980684)

Wow - I want one! But how does Duke Nukem Forever run on that thing?

Re:Of course not ... (4, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980740)

Dude! Duke Nukem forever is so old-school. We stopped running that on the last generation of optical processors. Its "Duke Nukem: The Heisenberg Incident" thats all the rage on our quantum boxes.

The only problem is, half the time when I try to play it, I get "file not found". Damn Schrodinger!

Send 'em a box of blank paper (5, Funny)

docbrown42 (535974) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980505)

...either that, or a empty box.

Re:Send 'em a box of blank paper (2, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980548)

Better yet, a box of toilet paper.

No, not the nice soft stuff. The nasty cheap English stuff, that'll scrape open their bleeding haemorhoids, because its obvious these guys have been sitting on their brains for too long ...

And while you're at it, sprinkle some fibreglass insulation fibres in the box, to give them "the itch you can't scratch in public." Hopefully, they'll think they caught anal gonorhea (you gotta catch *something* after trying to fuck over millions of people).

Re:Send 'em a box of blank paper (1)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980626)

Frustrated?

Re:Send 'em a box of blank paper (5, Funny)

Splab (574204) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980734)

mmm.. Charles Bronson styled toiletpaper - rough, tough and wont take shit from nobody.

SCO's retort (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980506)


"Your Honour, we propose that there may be a Linux 2.7 kernel in... you know... that other dimension where Spock has a beard."

Re:SCO's retort (5, Funny)

Xentor (600436) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980551)

"What's the use of us staying up all night arguing about whether there is or isn't a Linux 2.7 kernel, when you walk right up and tell us it doesn't exist!? We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty! I demand that I may, OR may NOT be Darl McBride!"

roflcopters and lollerskates. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980632)

+5 H2G2 reference!

Re:SCO's retort (1)

mmusson (753678) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980757)

An apt choice, since the band, Spock's Beard, has an album called The Beware of Darkness.

But when it comes out... (2, Insightful)

daniel_mcl (77919) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980508)

What do you want to bet that once the 2.7 kernel does come out that SCO points at the IBM contributions and claims perjury? Actually, that's probably the strategy they're going with here in the first place.

Re:But when it comes out... (2, Informative)

peragrin (659227) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980532)

It's not perjury if at the time it was true. And trying to pull such a stunt isn't a good way to impress the judges. It only shows the incompetence of your lawyers.

Re:But when it comes out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980537)

That'll be a long time. As far as I'm aware, there are no current plans to EVER have a 2.7 version, so SCO will most likely be bankrupt/dead/inhell before then.

Re:But when it comes out... (4, Insightful)

failure-man (870605) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980554)

No court on earth would ever buy that. Judges do understand the fact that reality changes over time.

(Although, if SCO does push the "Linux 2.7" thing, which they may be stupid and/or high enough to do, it would be some nice smartassitude to jump a version number to piss them off.)

Re:But when it comes out... (2, Insightful)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980621)

Actually, hasn't it been traditional (at least recently) for stable branches to be even versions (2.2, 2.4, 2.6) and dev branches to be odd? Then I remember some story about breaking that tradition by putting experimental code right into the 2.6 branch. Given those two conditions, the next logical release WOULD be 2.8.

That was suggested on Groklaw... (4, Funny)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980732)

Someone hinted that it'd be damned cool if Linus went and sent out an email, announcing 2.7, with the content in a file or the email to the effect of: "This Release Intentionally Left Blank" and then release 2.8/2.9.

Re:But when it comes out... (1)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980707)

What's to keep Linux & friends from simply naming the next version 2.8 (actually 2.9 given the test/release numbering of the past), as a way to prevent legal problems from arising from SCO's nonsense?

What 2.7 kernel? (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980729)

SCO is sooo stupid. Everyone knows Linus will skip right to 2.8 just to spite SCO.

Ha ha

Maybe not as a big a deal as the article says? (5, Insightful)

conJunk (779958) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980513)

Sure, it's funny. SCO is caught looking like fools. Ha ha. But maybe not such a big deal.

Document requests in discovery are governed by Rule 34 [cornell.edu] . One of the provisions of this rule is that the respondant has 30 days to answer the document request.

IBM will say "sorry, we don't have any of the documents you've requested because they don't exist"

Sure SCO looks bad, but i don't think this is a case of everybody "laughing so hard we won't be able to hear you if you mumble" as TFA suggests.

Re:Maybe not as a big a deal as the article says? (3, Informative)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980767)

Considering that they said "2.7" in the oral presentations in the court, yes, this is silly beyond words, and I suspect that the Nazgul will respond accordingly...

I suspected that this sort of BS was WHY SCO filed everything under seal- it'd be shown for the lame tripe that they've been shown to be holding in their hand up to this point. I think they may well have been handed all the rope they need and then some; I think there's some PSJ's in SCO's relative near future and a raftload of agony for the Principals on SCO's side in this whole debacle.

Well, at least one can HOPE that this will end finally soon enough.

The answer is easy (5, Funny)

Philodoxx (867034) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980520)

The way I see it, IBM has two very easy answers to SCO's request.

1) Hand them a blank piece of paper.

2) Attach a bell and a whistle to a CD containing the source for the latest 2.6 kernel.

I propose a patch for the hearing impaired (1)

artifex2004 (766107) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980671)

Can we include a flashing LED button, too? That would make it more accessible. But it has to flash slowly, to avoid causing seizures.

While they're at it... (2, Funny)

YodaToo (776221) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980523)

...they should get copies of the patents for that perpetual motion machine.

Way To Go Jack@ss! (1)

[Galaxie] (40909) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980524)

Way to once again discredit the entire case... Darl, give it up, you'll run out of investors and money soon.

Re:Way To Go Jack@ss! (1)

failure-man (870605) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980587)

That's what we were all saying . . . . . how many years ago now? SCO seems to have more lives than my inbox has offers for discount viagra.

So embarassing (1, Flamebait)

skrysakj (32108) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980526)

I used to be disgusted by the continued fight between SCO and others, but now I am overwhelmed with a feeling of embarassment of what this looks like to non-Americans and how they see us. Yes, start the posts about how bad we are already viewed, which I already know about. Reminding me of that only makes my ulcer gets worse. This used to be aggravating, frustrating, even maddening, but now it feels more like a kick in the stomach. I cannot believe these guys!

Re:So embarassing (1)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980579)

Most opinions about the nature of Americans were born long before this lawsuit ever started. I won't bother reiterating any of the reasons, but there is a legacy easily spanning half a centry for people who seek to dislike the Americans to draw upon, all without the help of a few more scum suckers.

I'm forced at this point to head off the rhetoric by pointing out that the US has done great things as well, but those aren't what's being discussed. :P

Re:So embarassing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980694)

Ironically, the mere fact that you're free, wherever you happen to be, to say negative things about the United States is, in and of itself, a demonstration of the greatness of the United States. The freedom of speech is a notion that nobody had ever thought to write into law before the United States was founded. You enjoy it now, guaranteed by your government, because the founders of the United States thought it sounded like a good idea.

Like indoor plumbing or sunlight, the historical impact of the United States is so ubiquitous that it's practically never noticed until its absent.

Re:So embarassing (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980798)

Which is just another reason for the world to both dislike the US for what it has become, and mourn the great country it used to be. Hopefully, in the future, the US will find a way to return to the days when it was a country run by the people, for the people, where ultimately it was the citizens who were held up above all else, instead of the corporations and corrupt politicians. But, until then, I'll go on criticizing the US for what it is: a power hungry, war mongering, imperialist force.

Re:So embarassing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980627)

What upsets me more is that some of us actually give a shit about what the rest of the world thinks of us. The only reason our reputation with other countries matters is because it buys us political clout to get them to do what we want. Let the other countries think what they want. In the end, we're still the big dog on the block, and that's not going to change for the forseeable future, regardless of our reputation.

Re:So embarassing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980708)

and the sun will never set on the british empire.

Re:So embarassing (4, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980650)

Kind of off-topic, but your signature is also a bit embarassing:

Educational Sig: Referrer is spelled with two r's, not one. HTTP_REFERER has a typo.

Last I looked, Referrer is spelled with 4 "r"s, not one OR 2.

R - e - f - e - R - R - e - R

(capitalized/capitalised* so you can't miss them)

*spelling varies depending on continent :-)

Re:So embarassing (2, Interesting)

seanellis (302682) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980716)

Strange. I'm as skeptical about the US as the next guy (and I live just across from France, dont'cha know?), but I never even considered SCO's corporate asininity as an "American thing" until you mentioned it.

After a little reflection, I still don't view it that way. IBM, after all, are the good guys here and they're American too.

IMO, it's a "stupid company thing". And believe me, there are quite a few of those outside the US, too.

Next they'll want (1, Funny)

MECC (8478) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980529)

MacOS X 12.0 Alien Autoposy documents Burial place of Jimmy Hoffa ...

Still damaging (5, Insightful)

Vlijmen Fileer (120268) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980530)

To most of us, SCO has been purely laughable for a long time already.
But as long as it can stay in the news, it will keep damaging Linux's reputation; other pepole keep hearing the general news of "Linux being under attack".
The big question, and what we should hope for is: when will SCO's whining /ever/ stop?

Re:Still damaging (1)

failure-man (870605) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980629)

When they arrest the SCO brass and bring them up on fraud charges and/or they retire with their ill-gotten millions to one of those fancy retirement communes in Arizona.

Of course there is Linux 2.7.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980531)

and SCO knows it - IBM is developing it right now.
What do you say? Linux is neither maintained nor was invented by IBM?
Oh guess SCO aren't that much of a serious company after all...

Of course they can get access to the 2.7 kernel. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980536)

All they need is a DeLorean and 1.21 jiggwatts of electricty.

This is like a Slashdot poster's sex life (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980546)

This is like someone demanding all there is to know about a Slashdot poster's sex life. Perhaps I can help IBM by sending SCO a letter saying on the envelope "Everything that IBM has contributed to the 2.7 kernel". The letter will contain a single page with the following text in the middle of it:
This space intentionally left blank
In fact, perhaps many Slashdot posters can send these letters to SCO legal department, helping them get the information they are looking for. It's time for Slashdot to help make the world a better place.

Couldn't this be wrong? (4, Interesting)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980549)

Last time I checked(admittedly, it's been a long time), odd numbered kernels are the kernels where major changes are made. Couldn't it be said that SCO is really asking for future plans on major additions to the kernel in asking for planned additions to 2.7, rather than simply asking for data about a piece of code which does not yet exist?

Re:Couldn't this be wrong? (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980703)

But that would be logical and make sense

Re:Couldn't this be wrong? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980737)

Well you could, of course if anyone has been paying attention to the linux kernel, such major changes are being implented directly into the 2.6 kernel.

That's why there is no 2.7 such changes are being pushed into 2.6

Re:Couldn't this be wrong? (1)

mopslik (688435) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980746)

Couldn't it be said that SCO is really asking for future plans on major additions to the kernel in asking for planned additions to 2.7, rather than simply asking for data about a piece of code which does not yet exist?

It could, but when you're dealing with lawyer-speak and all of that "letter of the law" mumbo-jumbo, asking for thw 2.7 kernel means asking for the 2.7 kernel. Otherwise they would have asked for "the latest development kernel".

Typos (2, Insightful)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980550)

While I usually go easy on people for making typographical errors like this, and dislike nit-picking over such things by an online community of hecklers, it's pretty funny.

FYI, to those who haven't scanned the pdf, they also request:

"All documents concerning IBM's contributions to" ten specific Linux projects, including "development work," and "all documents concerning contributions to Linux" through several additional specific Linux projects.

So it doesn't seem to indicate that the memo is null and void, or that the lawyers don't know anything about technology, just that the lawyers are being very hasty and don't check their facts. Of course, SCO has not demonstrated much regard for "facts" at all in this case.

No 2.7 kernel ever? (1)

Fackamato (913248) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980552)

Of course, there is no 2.7 kernel and no plans at all to create one.

What?! There's no plans at all to create a 2.7 kernel? Oh man, I can see the future now... Soon we'll all be cheering for the 2.6.142 kernel release.

Re:No 2.7 kernel ever? (1)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980590)

Or a 3.0?

Well, its my turn to demand something of SCO (2, Funny)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980553)

Its my turn to threaten legal action against the company of SCO if they don't immediatly hand over any remaning quantities of what they're smoking and the phone number of the guy they got it from.

Waited For It (2, Funny)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980555)

I have posted before wondering why IBM would allow such a stupid suit by SCO to continue for years. But maybe this unmitigated autodiscredit is the payoff. IBM's lawyers have worked hard for years on tough stuff. Maybe this gig is just a payoff, an IBM lawyer's wet dream.

Re:Waited For It (2, Informative)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980718)

IBM has asked for Summary Judgement, the courts have not allowed it (yet..maybe when Discovery is over in early 2006). SCO is really being allowed massive amounts of rope by the Courts. That is the reason things are taking so long. Which might be good if there is an appeal. Based on what I have read on Groklaw from legal experts, the length of time this case is taking is really not that long compared to others of a similar nature.

Yes, IBM could have bought them for a fraction of the cost of litigation, but I think IBM is 1)standing on prinicple they didn't do anything 2) won't be "blackmailed", if they give in to SCO God only know how many others will be coming after IBM 3) winning in Court would clear Linux completely from any shadow of being derived from UNIX.

No Plan? (2, Insightful)

alfrin (858861) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980558)

Said who?
Why are we assuming that, since we're in the 2.6 branch that they have no intention of moving into a 2.7.
Isn't that called development?Second of all, why would IBM have information about it? And why does SCO care?

Re:No Plan? (2, Informative)

kidgenius (704962) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980641)

Says Linus and the other lead developers. A while back they changed their minds about how kernel numbering and development was going to take place.

What has this to do with their case? (1)

shibbie (619359) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980562)

I thought they were accusing IBM of putting copyrighted material in an early version of source, wtf is this request for - it seemingly is unrelated....?

And while they are at it... (1)

banglogic (702448) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980564)

They also demand that 3D Realms turn over the source code for Duke Nukem Forever [wired.com] .

Re:And while they are at it... (1)

Sangui5 (12317) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980673)

That'll do them no good until they get a Phantom Game Console [hardocp.com] to run it on.

Re:And while they are at it... (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980811)

They also demand that 3D Realms turn over the source code for Duke Nukem Forever.


Indeed. While they're at it, they probably ought to insist that IBM hand them a couple of Jackalopes or Snipes. I mean, why not, they're obviously going for broke here...

If I were IBM (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980575)

I'd be sorely tempted to order three or four pallets of blank paper and send that over with "Linux 2.7" scribbled on the boxes and just take whatever fines that earns you :).

In other filings... (5, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980577)

SCO has also demanded the BBC turn over working blueprints of the TARDIS, that Arthur C Clarke provide a CVS snapshot of HAL 9000 and that Isaac Asimov reveal the equations used in psychohistory. SCO is also investigating secret codes in the Bible for possible hidden prophecies revealing System V code.


I am now convinced that someone at SCO has flipped their lid and become a paranoid schizophrenic. Either that, or they are aiming at a career on the Comedy Channel once SCO sinks without trace.

Impressed (1)

trollable (928694) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980578)

"The supremely funny SCO Group has now topped even itself."
They always impress us, don't they?
What will be their next joke?

Re:Impressed (1)

Ithika (703697) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980701)

I wish they had topped themselves [urbanup.com] .

And IBM will refuse to comply. (3, Funny)

RandoX (828285) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980580)

More evidence of the giant corporation stonewalling justice.

:)

Of course they want the 2.7 kernel... (4, Funny)

ivanmarsh (634711) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980584)

They have to write SCO System VI somehow.

Re:Of course they want the 2.7 kernel... (1)

anishm (770357) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980704)

What SCO needs kernel source to write an editor? Maybe because it is "System VI" :)

1.0 (1)

happyfrogcow (708359) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980596)

Send them a repackaged 1.0 version. That will really rattle their wombats.

read TFA. it's probably a typo. (3, Insightful)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980601)

Quoting from SCO's motion, which is reprinted in TFA, emphasis mine:
  • All documents concerning IBM's contributions to" ten specific Linux projects, including "development work," and "all documents concerning contributions to Linux" through several additional specific Linux projects.
  • "All documents concerning IBM's contributions to the Linux 2.7 kernel," including "development work."
  • "All documents concerning IBM's contributions to any development tree for Linux," including the "development trees" themselves.

The boldfaced line is the only one in the motion where the "2.7" appears.

Now, do you really think that they intended to demand code contributed to a nonexistent project? Or that perhaps, just maybe, someone fat-fingered "2.6?"

In other words, this is most likely just a silly typo. Nothing to see, move along.

Re:read TFA. it's probably a typo. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980715)

You mean people actually use the keys above the letters besides for making symbols appear? Because six and seven are a couple inches away from each other on the numpad...

Re:read TFA. it's probably a typo. (1)

Ignominious (816315) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980777)

why would you move your hand over to the 'numpad' just to type 2 digits?

Not a typo. (1)

KitesWorld (901626) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980810)

It was refferred to vocally by SCO in the case. read the comments at the bottom of the article - the court transcripts mention it at least twice.

maybe SCO knows something we don't (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980607)

Maybe IBM is planning a kernel fork. They could easily be developing their own 2.7 kernel.

Edit (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980613)

Of course, there is no 2.7 kernel and no plans at all to create one...yet."

There. Fixed it.

Tough week for SCO (2, Funny)

Skiron (735617) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980620)

Grokster had the 2.7 kernel code for download...

Dug It (0, Redundant)

chuckw (15728) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980628)

As usual /. is a day behind. This was posted on digg [digg.com] yesterday.

..Chuck..

It's about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980670)

This is just another example of IBM stonewalling SCO on discovery

Now they say there is no lUNIX 2.7 and refuse to produce it, let's not forget that previously we asked them to produce the infringing code in lUNIX, and they also claim that there wasn't any.

It's about time the Slashdot crowd, acknowledged that lUNIX (even the name!) infringes SCO's copyrights, that you all owe SCO $699* and IBM owes SCO $5bn.

Dirl McBrade

* Volume discounts available for multiple servers.

Linus to release notes (2, Funny)

supun (613105) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980727)

Linus has a notes about Linux 2.7 on a few bar napkin. Many are just pictures of a penguin pissing on a grave stone with SCO carved in it.

How the hell... (1)

drunkennewfiemidget (712572) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980730)

Could IBM be relying on SCO's software and methodologies when the people at SCO don't even understand a NOT (!) operator?

Ow. OwOwOw. (1)

superdan2k (135614) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980731)

Okay, my brain hurts. Does anyone have a general overview of what's happening (beyond "Darl McBride is an ass-clown" and "SCO sucks")? Like, give it to me from square one?

Aspirin on the web... (1)

ansak (80421) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980807)

It's all there on groklaw [groklaw.net] , starting with the players [groklaw.net] and just go on from there. Even the lawyers go here, so it's GOING to be more than the pejorative stuff you wanted to go beyond. cheers...ank

SCO DEMANDS UR MOM (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980733)

SCO totally reamed ur mom last night

In other news (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980738)

SCO's OpenServer and TelSoft Solutions' MegaCall Combine to Meet the Call Processing Needs of Los Angeles County

LINDON, Utah, Oct. 19 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), a leading provider of UNIX® software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that Los Angeles County will use SCO OpenServer as a platform for TelSoft's MegaCall turnkey call accounting and tracking system, ending the county's exhaustive search for a solution. TelSoft Solutions is a leading provider of call accounting and billing services for organizations of any size.

With 88 cities and 28 percent of all California residents, Los Angeles County is the largest county in the U.S. It requires an enterprise-level call-tracking system on a highly fault-tolerant application platform. MegaCall and OpenServer met this rigorous requirement among many other requirements, and will be implemented in more than 125 county locations.

"SCO has been a popular platform in the telecom industry for decades, providing platforms for companies such as: Lucent, Avaya, Siemens, Comverse and many others," said Alan Raymond, Vice President of Americas Sales, The SCO Group, Inc. "SCO's interoperability with other operating systems and adaptability to fit the server needs of any businesses also makes OpenServer a valuable addition to large corporations who utilize the MegaCall system."

There is a 2.7 (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980765)

Assuming there is a 2.7, SCO should already have access to it, since it's open source. And if there is a 2.7 in the works, it's basically 2.6, because 2.7 would be changes made to 2.6. They don't rewrite it every time they put out a new version.

Leaked Sourcecode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980790)

/*
        sco.h - constants for interfacing with SCO related callbacks
        Linux 2.7 Kernel Module
        Copyright (C) 2005 Internaional Business Machines
        GNU Public License
*/
enum{
        NON_PROFIT,
        FOR_PROFIT,
        LETIGIOUS_BASTARDS
};

static const int sco_org_model = LETIGIOUS_BASTARDS;
static const int sco_wait_to_reply = MAX_INT;
static char[] std_sco_response = "Screw off!";

SCO V. SCO (1)

Blade80 (416070) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980794)

Next thing you know SCO will sue http://www.sco.edu/ [sco.edu] SCO.

They might as well reveal it ... (3, Funny)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980796)

Most of us have been keeping this a secret, but the 2.7 series source is on a HD-DVD disk hanging from a sky-hook in the basement of the Alamo.

Okay, so what happens if... (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 8 years ago | (#13980816)

What happens if IBM does actually have contributory work for a Linux 2.7 kernel? I'm kind of lost here. What does that prove/show? The code can be downloaded when its released anyway? No need for courts.

Something just doesn't seem right about this to me. I'm having a little difficulty believing that lawyers are THAT stupid? If they haven't proven that the code for the 2.6 kernel is infringing, how in the hell can the code in 2.7 be infringing, if there is code for 2.7?
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>