Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Getting a glimpse at SCO's evidence
CNET news.com ^ | August 19, 2003 | Lisa M. Bowman

Posted on 08/19/2003 7:39:56 AM PDT by Joe Bonforte

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-166 next last
To: All
OK, a couple of good articles are up:

Why SCO won't show the code

Analysis of Linux Code that SCO Alleges Is In Violation Of Their Copyright and Trade Secrets

61 posted on 08/19/2003 10:09:51 AM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: steve50
Last I heard SCO wouldn't identify the code they claim ownership of to allow removal.

Still true. SCO doesn't want removal, they want a shakedown.

They are now saying that some of the code may have originally been GPL'd,Berkeley code, but if AT&T copied it (remember, SCO themselves bought this in -- they develop NOTHING) then the AT&T and subsequent SCO licence override the GPL.

In plain English, "We copied it, but it's OK; if you copied it from the same source, you have to pay us."

Their legal strategy will hinge on getting a very stupid jury, sending them to sleep with long and irrelevant exhibits, and banging on the table in the closing arguments.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

62 posted on 08/19/2003 10:11:21 AM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Joe Bonforte
MS is used to stealing code. One wonders if this SCO thing isn't a plant by the guys from MS that have been trying to scuttle linux all along. No need for conspiracy theories when it's a known issue.
63 posted on 08/19/2003 10:12:17 AM PDT by Havoc (If you can't be frank all the time are you lying the rest of the time?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
A slightly insulting name for a frequent poster (and spreader of FUD) to these SCO threads...
64 posted on 08/19/2003 10:13:18 AM PDT by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Roman Imperial motto: "Let them hate, so long as they fear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Now why did you have to go and do that? Hehehehehehehe!
65 posted on 08/19/2003 10:15:06 AM PDT by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Roman Imperial motto: "Let them hate, so long as they fear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Joe Bonforte
[SCO] deserve to be heavily counter-sued.

Well, they're secure on that flank, because the company and the OS are both at death's door. There's no money there, and no ethical attorney would let his client waste his money filing against an empty shell.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

66 posted on 08/19/2003 10:17:19 AM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
Well, they're secure on that flank, because the company and the OS are both at death's door. There's no money there, and no ethical attorney would let his client waste his money filing against an empty shell.

In a just world, Boies himself would have his pants sued off.

67 posted on 08/19/2003 10:24:46 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
SCO is showing excerpts of their code comments in Greek? Heh, I hope they try that at the trial.

SCO will not win this case by showing comparisons of non-functional comments. Bring on the subpoenas. Let's see a comparison of real code, and hear the testimony of the programmers and the copyright experts.

68 posted on 08/19/2003 10:24:51 AM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
Is lwn.net hosted on Windoze? It's dead!
69 posted on 08/19/2003 10:28:05 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: All
The second page of code has been traced even farther back:

http://ftp.lug.udel.edu/pub/oldunix/local/unix/v3wkt/ken/malloc.c

In the README file:

http://ftp.lug.udel.edu/pub/oldunix/local/unix/v3wkt/Readme.html

In January 1999, Dennis Ritchie sent in a copy of the `nsys' UNIX kernel for inclusion in the PUPS Archive. In the accompanying README, he says:

So far as I can determine, this is the earliest version of Unix that currently exists in machine-readable form. ... The dates on the transcription are hard to interpret correctly; if my program that interprets the image are correct, the files were last touched on 22 Jan, 1973. ...

70 posted on 08/19/2003 10:28:18 AM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Is lwn.net hosted on Windoze? It's dead!

No, it's being Slashdot'ed. The link was posted as an update to the original story about the SCO code, on the front page. There are probably something on the order of 250,000 people trying to read the article.

In my opinion, the second article is a bit better, anyway.

71 posted on 08/19/2003 10:30:01 AM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
I do not believe that a BSD copyright will discourage SCO. One of SCO's goals is to call into question all "unauthorized UNIX implementations" not just Linux.
72 posted on 08/19/2003 10:30:51 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
SCO is showing excerpts of their code comments in Greek?

It appears those comments are not relevant: no one has found them anywhere. They are probably from SCO's kernel and truly proprietary.

It was just a lame attempt to obfuscate it. I'm not sure why they even included it. And if you look closely at the code on the second page, you will notice a typo that apparently occurred when cutting/pasting the code into the slide.

73 posted on 08/19/2003 10:32:19 AM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
I do not believe that a BSD copyright will discourage SCO.

The code pre-dates SCO's implementation, and indicates that SCO actually copied it from BSD. That's legal under the BSD copyright, until they claimed it as their own.

74 posted on 08/19/2003 10:33:52 AM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Boies -- you can count on it -- will reach around and pull yet another amazing thing out of his rear end. He's already argued against the GPL, not on high-minded national security grounds like the tweet guy (one could at least respect that while disagreeing profoundly), but rather purporting that Federal law forbids the delegation of copyright!
75 posted on 08/19/2003 10:37:12 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: All
More interesting information about SCO's claims, which may have already been posted in another thread:

http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html

It demolishes a number of SCO's claims, point by point. It also provides good information about the origins of Unix.

76 posted on 08/19/2003 10:40:37 AM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
If SCO argues the GPL is invalid, it's not such a stretch to argue the same for the BSD license. Likewise, it seems to me that SCO's position is they own all UNIX implementations, not just the UNIX version 6, version 7, and SVR4, up to and including Linux and open source BSD. I believe that SCO is gambling on the ignorance of the judiciary on computer technology, and it's not an unsafe bet.
77 posted on 08/19/2003 10:41:38 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
The most likely explanation: Code that IBM created and returned to the Unix community as a contribution was ALSO contributed to the Linux community. SCO objects, arguing that IBM's Unix license prohibits them from doing this. That's why they've sued on breach of contract, not on copyright infringement.
78 posted on 08/19/2003 10:42:34 AM PDT by Norman Conquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
I do not believe that a BSD copyright will discourage SCO.

A court is unlikely to take seriously any attempt by SCO to re-litigate the settlement reached between Unix System Laboratories/Novell and Berkeley over just these issues. To the extent SCO inherited AT&T's contracts and AT&T's UNIX IP, it also inherited the settlement reached in 1994.

In its never-ending silliness campaign, SCO will no doubt claim they intend to do just that, but no judge is going to let them re-open an issue that was settled nine years ago by the then-owners of the properties.

79 posted on 08/19/2003 10:45:13 AM PDT by Nick Danger (Time is what keeps everything from happening at once)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
s lwn.net hosted on Windoze? It's dead!

It's slashdotted. (if that means nothing to you: when the open source news site slashdot.org cites something of interest to its readers, the server frequently gets buried. Lwn.net is there, it's just overrun with readers and reeeeeal slow).

For people who want the technical side of this, here is the /. thread... most of you who'd benefit have probably already been there.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

80 posted on 08/19/2003 10:49:36 AM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-166 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson