Replies

As usual, Jokelaw doesn't give the full story. From news.com:

http://news.com.com/SCO+e-mail+No+smoking+gun+in+Linux+code/2100-7344_3-5789132.html?part=rss&tag=5789132&subj=news

Late Thursday, SCO released an e-mail from Swartz that it points out shows the analysis dates back to 1999 and that SCO says shows that Swartz did find possible issues with Linux.

In the e-mail, dated Oct. 4, 1999, Swartz said that there was some code that was line-for-line identical to Unix and other code that appeared to be rewritten, perhaps to disguise that it was copied.

In the e-mail, dated Oct. 4, 1999, Swartz said that there was some code that was line-for-line identical to Unix and other code that appeared to be rewritten, perhaps to disguise that it was copied.

That's easy to explain, you must remember we're dealing with SCO here.... in 1999 they noticed that the kernel used some code such as... "for (x =0; x < y; ++x)". In 2002 they realized that such code is farily common. Big deal.

As usual, Jokelaw doesn't give the full story. From news.com:

As usual, News.com doesn't post original documents so we can read for ourselves. However, I'm sure Kimball saw both before he gave his "Despite the vast disparity between SCO's public accusations and its actual evidence--or complete lack thereof..." statment.

And to go further into the actual subject of this thread rather than your attacks on Groklaw, check this out. I've read the Swartz memo (watch out for clicking, it's a PDF from Groklaw!) from '99. News.com and SCO leave out two very important matters.

First, "infringing" code mentioned is admittedly likely to be covered under the BSD agreement, written by third parties, or standaard code for standards compliance, and is therefore exempt. Second, all of this is a preliminary investigation "subject to the further analysis" to decide whether any of the code they found is actually infringing.

I'll give you one guess as to who the guy mentioned in this memo is who was supposed to do the "further analysis" and reach a final conclusion.

If you guessed Michael Davidson, the author of the memo that this thread is about, your're right! To put it succinctly, their initial investigation said "there might be something here," while their final conclusion was "there's nothing here."

Darl was making his threatening statements and trying to sell SCO Source licenses after that final "there's nothing here" conclusion. I would say that could land him in jail. He and Evers would be good bunk buddies.