Posted on 07/14/2005 4:01:54 PM PDT by Salo
Davidson reports:
The project was a result of SCO's executive management refusing to believe that it was possible for Linux and much of the GNU software to have come into existance without *someone* *somewhere* having copied pieces of proprietary UNIX source code to which SCO owned the copyright. The hope was that we would find a "smoking gun" somwhere in code that was being used by Red Hat and/or the other Linux companies that would give us some leverage. (There was, at one stage, the idea that we would sell licenses to corporate customers who were using Linux as a kind of "insurance policy" in case it turned out that they were using code which infringed our copyright).
So, Darl's SCOsource scheme wasn't even original, was it? SCO *hoped* to find copyright infringement so they could make some money selling "insurance" for Linux, the email says. Sound familiar? And after all that effort, what did they find?
At the end, we had found absolutely *nothing*. ie no evidence of any copyright infringement whatsoever.
No comment.
Actually, B2K has a point. The 1999 study looked at Red Hat 5.2 (used the 2.0.36 kernel IIRC) and Darl alleges infringements in kernels 2.4 and up. These memos/emails do not really address any subsequent copying. We can probably assume that the line-by-line stuff highlighted in the Swartz memo was resolved by the time Davidson wrote his email.
What about anything added after 2000? assuming there was, of course...
As far as this case goes, that is a very good point. However, Darl McBride has publicly claimed Linux was tainted as of "early 2000."
Darl's big mouth won't matter until we get to the countersuits. However, SCO's official position, as documented in paragraph 5 of its Second Amended Complaint is:
.. Linux 2.4.x and 2.6.x and the development kernel, 2.5.x, are replete with protected technology. As such, the Linux 2.4.x, Linux 2.5.x and 2.6.x kernels are unauthorized derivatives of UNIX System V.
The memo saying there was no line by line copying was in *late* 2002.. Hopefully SCO will get nailed with 1500 counts of mail fraud for those extortion letters..
And the analysis was based on work done in 1999 -- not 2002. Meaning, it doesn't help you.
The question here is whether they acted in bad faith. The 2002 email says that it "probably closes this discussion [on infringing code]." Davidson, who is apparently intimately familiar with SCO's code, said the investigation was a "waste of time.".
I almost can't see why SCO is even bothering with this, at least as far as IBM goes, because they've fallen back to the position that Linux has none of their code in it, but it has tons of IBM-written code in it that they lay claim to through their thoroughly debunked derivatives theory. Remember, they've been trying to weasel-out of their original copyright infringement claim (that SYSV code is in Linux) for quite a while.
I told you it doesn't go so much with the IBM case because that's mainly on their derivatives theory (with SCO trying to drop the original copyright claim, and being caught by the judge for being disingenuous in doing so), but with Darl making a statement that infringement existed in the timeframe soon after this study, the statement being made not long after this memo. That shows bad faith.
You mean like Sandeep Gupta's investigation? The one that was completely trashed by Brian Kernighan? Hmmm, who to believe, some SCO guy with a little UNIX experience, or an independent, world-renowned computer scientist who's been involved with UNIX since it was invented?
it's probably not possible to make such a conclusion without additional information.
Are you talking about the information that Judge Kimball said is completely absent?
I'm a skeptic at heart. Show me the evidence, then I will accept. I've heard claims of a "million lines of code," yet I, and apparently the judge, have yet to see one. I will give SCO weasel room if you consider the software that IBM wrote to belong to SCO.
Likewise, it's entirely possible that McBride simply rejected the conclusions of Davidson's audit.
Quite probable. He was hired to do this lawsuit, so he wouldn't want anything like the facts standing in his way.
Yes, in the legal sense of "discovered" (revealed to scrutiny).
The real significance of this is that it constitutes evidence that SCO management knew at the time that they were undertaking a baseless fishing expedition.
This element (mail fraud) seems the most likely to cause him to be known as "Darla" to his cell mate.
Yep -- SCO has been on notice that their barratry is without basis for six years. That is, if anything, an aggrivating rather than a mitigating factor.
That in itself would be a show of bad faith. For example, if I hired a surveyor to find my property line, he found it to be between my house and my neighbor's house, and I then "simply rejected the conclusions" and sued my neighbor for building his house on my property, I'd get slam-dunked -- just like Darl & Co.
I can't comment on SCO's internal communications or investigations -- nor can you. Neither of us has been privy to everything that SCO has done in order to substantiate its claim against IBM. How about a little due process? Wait for the trial before you declare them guilty of anything. Otherwise, we're caught in an endless loop of you guys declaring that the judge is going to throw the case out of court and McBride is going to be led away in an orange jumpsuit for God knows what, me laughing at you, and repeating ad nauseum...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.