Getting a glimpse at SCO's evidence

CNET news.com ^ | August 19, 2003 | Lisa M. Bowman

[HiTech RedNeck]

So I don't see where SCO is exacerbating any damages. It is merely preventing those who have presumably infringed in the past from hiding that infringement before SCO sues them.

None of SCO's pleadings stipulate that future damages are barred. And "those who have presumably infringed in the past" couldn't "hide it" already by ditching Linux altogether? Tell me another good joke.

[Joe Bonforte]

This is called begging the question.

I don't think so. I was replying to someone who said "What I don't understand is the Linux guys have offered to fix the problem by removing SCO code and replacing it with open source." I was pointing out that simply removing infringing code from Linux does not clear the table on past infringements. And yes, of course that argument was assuming hypothetically that some of the IP was copied. Was that assumption not obvious from the first line that said "I think I can explain SCO's point of view on that."?

"The linux source and its evolution is as well documented as any such activity can be. The CVS archives contain records of every change ever made (well, after Linus released the first versions) and they are publicly readable."

What good does that do for Linux users? From SCO's point of view, the end users are the ones using (hypothetically) infringing code. The license arrangements between those users and the original programmers are not relevant to SCO's case, because those license arrangements (as best as I understand them) do not assign any liability to those who produced the code.

Perhaps you are suggesting that, if SCO has evidence of infringing code, they should be suing individual programmers instead? That's an interesting thought.

[N3WBI3]

Linux uses bit-tracker or bit-torrent, something like that but your point is well made.

[justlurking]

Lots of info coming in, as people have found the origin of the code that SCO claims is there. Will post in a moment when I compile it.

[Joe Bonforte]

Only if it agrees, in effect, to be barred from the Linux business forevermore.

I must have missed that. The article just mentioned a non-disclosure agreement. How does that get people out of the Linux business?

[Joe Bonforte]

And "those who have presumably infringed in the past" couldn't "hide it" already by ditching Linux altogether?

That's a good point, but it's also a "hiding solution" of a completely different magnitude. It would probably be cheaper for most such organizations to just pay off SCO instead of abandoning Linux in favor of another OS, which they presumably would have to buy. So that solution for hiding the evidence is probably not economically practical.

And I'm trying hard to ignore your "Tell me another good joke" type responses in the interests of maintaining a civil debate.

[N3WBI3]

Because SCO can go after the person who submitted the code directly. If you buy a stolen car you lose the car but are not put on trial for GTA. The person who seteals the car (or code) is the one to go after not the person (or persons) they sold it to...

[justlurking]

A picture of code displayed by SCO at the conference:

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-19.08.03-000/imh0.jpg

They apparently switched some of the characters to the Symbol font to obfuscate it. But, it can easily be translated to:

As part of the kernel evolution towards modular naming, the functions malloc and mfree are being renamed to rmalloc and rmfree. Compatibility will be maintained by the following assembler code: (also see mfree/rmfree below)

Another picture:

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-19.08.03-000/imh1.jpg

There are reports of this code being found in 2.11 BSD, which was released in February, 1992. So, the consensus (so far) is that SCO took the code from BSD, as did Linux -- thus confirming there is a common source, and it is isn't SCO.

More to follow. I'm still compiling the info.

[HiTech RedNeck]

For one thing, previously possessed knowledge that happens to be identical to what was seen is not exempted from the ban on disclosure (which most NDA's do exempt, but SCO's quite notably does not). Since UNIX and Linux are so similar, this would prevent the person from ever working on Linux code that does anything similar to what the viewed UNIX code did. SCO is playing games, pure and simple.

[HiTech RedNeck]

In the eyes of the law it doesn't mitigate the fact that they COULD ditch Linux.

[dennisw]

F the bottom feeding lawfirm known as SCO. My predict is they will flame out.

[HiTech RedNeck]

It would probably be cheaper for most such organizations to just pay off SCO instead of abandoning Linux in favor of another OS, which they presumably would have to buy.

FreeBSD is another possibility.

[justlurking]

OK, an earlier incarnation of the code that has been found:

http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/sys/malloc.c.html

This is from 1979. I'm not clear on the origin of the code referenced above.

[HamiltonJay]

FreeBSD Kicks ass, far more stable than Linux, if not as well "known" in the press.

However, the whole thing is moot, because once the "controversial" code is known, it will be rewritten in a matter of DAYS at the most and new versions of any any Linux will no longer have the parts in question...

So everyone out there does a free upgrade to the newest Kernel, SCO can do nothing really other than persue RH and IBM et al.. which even if they would lose, would just stall SCO indefinately with legal proceedings to the point where if SCO ever got a dime, it would be ancient history.

IMHO Last thing SCO wants to do is get this to a courtroom, its way easier to intimidate 200-600 a pop from mom and pop oerations than it is to actually create new products.. which once the controversial code is completley removed, SCO will be forced into doing, which currently it is losing market share and revenue and will continue to do so.


The longer this issue stays "secret" and hidden, the longer they can keep blackmailing the public.

[justlurking]

And now the comments have been found in a 1984 posting to Usenet:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Allocate+'size'+units+from+the+given+map.%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=2551%40allegra.UUCP&rnum=1

[stripes1776]

Perhaps this is a good time to recall that over a decade ago, ATT sued BSD for coping their UNIX code. As the case progressed, it turned out that ATT had actually copied BSD code into UNIX. The case was settled out of court.

I do not think the present case will turn out to SCO's favor.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Yes, this definitely is a game in which SCO wants to exact tribute for the future. No, SCO can't exact tribute for the future - it has to mitigate its damages.

[dennisw]

IMHO Last thing SCO wants to do is get this to a courtroom, its way easier to intimidate 200-600 a pop from mom and pop oerations than it is to actually create new products.. .


SCO is in the lawsuit biz not the software biz

[justlurking]

Now, someone has found the code in question in a book published in 1974:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573980137/ref=lib_dp_TFCV/002-1855771-1491210?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader#reader-link

[Nick Danger]