SCO's Redacted Objections to Wells' Order and Appendix (Groklaw) [LWN.net]

Groklaw analyzes SCO's new redacted version of its Objections to Order Granting in Part IBM's Motion to Limit SCO's Claims. "Note as I do with a smile number 2 on the list, where Sontag's statement was that they had compared the Linux kernel and System V and found "many instances where our proprietary software has been simply copied and pasted or changed in order to hide the origin..." SCO then states in the Appendix: This is an accurate statement of comparison work performed by SCO in advance of public statements. There are in fact instances in which SCO's proprietary System V code was simply copied and pasted into the Linux kernel or associated libraries that were then included in a Red Hat distribution. Items Nos. 183, 184, 272. Ah! Weasel! Thy name is SCO. Hint to nongeeks: the libraries they are talking about are not part of the Linux kernel."

(Log in to post comments)

SCO's Redacted Objections to Wells' Order and Appendix (Groklaw)

Posted Jul 20, 2006 7:34 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]

It's nice to see them finally having to sleep in the bed they made.

Offcourse, at this point it's all pretty much irrelevant.

But it's still nice to see that eventually the enormous gulf between their (very!) public claims "millions of lines of code", "literally, line-for-line copied into the Linux kernel" and their complete lack of ability to point out even, oh say 100 such lines of code even after several *years* of litigation and literally millions of lines of lines of discovery are noticed and puts them between a rock and a hard place.

It's not going to fly. A few lines (around 500) of code that are claimed to be "substantially similar" in some *library* used by the kernel *build-process* is not in any way shape or form the same as "millions of lines of code", nor is such code "literally, line-for-line copied into the Linux kernel"

Besides, even what scraps they claim to have contradict their own statements. They are on the record as stating that they have no issue with the 2.4 Kernel. Which would exclude any code also used by that kernel. In which case their scraps of "evidence" are no longer even scraps, but actually not existing at all.