Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SCO's proof bogus, Linux advocate says (InfoWorld)
As seen in this
InfoWorld article, the mainstream press is beginning to get the word
about SCO's "copied code." "SCO spokesman Blake Stowell had not
viewed Perens' analysis, but he reasserted his company's belief that the
code was inappropriately contributed. 'At this point it's going to be his
word against ours,' he said of Perens."
(Log in to post comments)
SCO's proof bogus, Linux advocate says (InfoWorld) Posted Aug 19, 2003 21:36 UTC (Tue) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] "His word against ours."This is the point where all the academics, programmers, system managers, documentation specialists, and legal experts who understand the nature of this problem start wailing on SCO. This is not his "word" against "ours." This is clear evidence that SCO employees have publicly shown code that is supposed to be theirs, made a big show about it for their shills to write about, and wound up having UNIX experts show SCO for what they are, at least half-way. I swear, I can't wait until someone proves publicly about the other half. I have known thieves off and on in my lifetime. Thankfully, they all went to jail for their crimes. But, in every case, they covered up their thieving binges by yelling a blue storm about someone else doing it, often accusing someone who was innocent.
Re: SCO's proof bogus, Linux advocate says (InfoWorld) Posted Aug 19, 2003 21:57 UTC (Tue) by krice (guest, #1749) [Link] I'm not disagreeing with you, but here in the United States, we have too many white-collar criminals who never receive appropriate justice.Fines for major corporations must often be good laughs in the boardroom and executive offices when, say, the SEC levies them. No, not all, but it seems from my view, many. Oh, DOJ, can you "follow the money" in regards to SCO, WordPerfect and other anti-trust crimes? Do you have anyone there at least considering it? It seems worth pursuing. Perhaps a plea-bargain with SCO executives later could be useful-gee, has SCO and their backers covered that possibility in their plans, too???
Re: SCO's proof bogus, Linux advocate says (InfoWorld) Posted Aug 20, 2003 16:19 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] From his bakers part, IMO always seemed that SCO was to burn... (in a blaze of glory to them(bakers), if possible, of course)It is also obvious that this sliping out of evidence was not programmed, even a highly trained TECH eye could not tell much about 10 minutes of exposure to obfuscated code in a room full of journalists, specially when he was not prepared for it... If this marks the end of SCO FUD campaing, wich i doubt, than SCO masters will bury Sontag and Stowell faster than Linux/OSS can say revenge... BUT I BELIVE THEY WILL BE BACK WITH SUPPOSED "EVIDENCE" THAT HAD THE TRACKS CLEANED PREVIUOSLY,... IMO IS THEIR ONLY CHANCE. If not than is the end of SCO for sure.
SCO's proof bogus, Linux advocate says (InfoWorld) Posted Aug 19, 2003 21:58 UTC (Tue) by murry (guest, #13033) [Link] "...his words against ours...", uttered by a guy whose initials are BS.
SCO's proof bogus, Linux advocate says (InfoWorld) Posted Aug 19, 2003 22:42 UTC (Tue) by banjopaterson (guest, #14203) [Link] Blake Stowell is in the same fantasy world that is being shared by Darl McB and Sontag. If memory serves me correctly, Mr Stowell was one of those selling SCO shares when they went up to the $10 mark, which is REALLY what this is all about - as IBM put it - stock market price manipulation.Tomorrow will be an interesting day as world+dog rips SCO's "copied code" apart. I wonder what Ms Laura DiDio is thinking now? It will be interesting to see the other 999,990+ lines of code that SCO says was "copied" - if we can.
His word against ours Posted Aug 19, 2003 22:45 UTC (Tue) by kokopelli (guest, #11341) [Link] Could it be as simple as their crack legal team thinking that Linux lives in a CVS repository on Linus' personal machine, a source that is suggestive but hardly conclusive since a knowledgable person can manipulate the repository?Maybe I'm naive, but once SCO first made its claim I would have expected one of the first acts by any interested party was to grab a snapshot of kernel.org precisely to prove/disprove any "after-the-fact" manipulation of the source. This is easily done with Linux, but how is SCO prepared to show that it didn't deliberately copy chunks of Linux code into its source tree to "prove" infringement. (All of this refers to their argument up to a few days ago. The current claim that Linux copied millions of lines of SCO code simply can't pass the giggle test.)
Thanks, folks Posted Aug 19, 2003 22:59 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] The linked article is based on an LWN article and research posted in response by LWN readers earlier today, plus a few emails. I summarized all of that in a form palatable to the press and sent off to my press list. Thanks, folks, for doing all of the hard work.Bruce
Thanks Bruce Posted Aug 19, 2003 23:48 UTC (Tue) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] You've done a great job of collating the data and getting it in the mainstream eye. We all (humanity) owe you one.
SCO copied Linux code? Posted Aug 20, 2003 4:15 UTC (Wed) by billyfoss (guest, #14215) [Link] There seems to be one more similarity to the AT&T vs. BSD case. According to the history of Unix chart on SCO's web site(http://www.sco.com/scosource/unixtree/unixhistory01.html) SCO copied FROM Linux. If you look at the UnixWare Pedigree around Aug 21, 2000, two arrows clearly point from Linux to UnixWare. One is from Linux 2.2.16, and the other is from Linux 2.4.0 Test 1.I would guess this is related to the Linux Kernel Personality feature added to UnixWare 7. (http://www.sco.com/products/openunix/lkp/faq.html) "LKP incorporates both the kernel interfaces and a Linux application environment directly into the Open UNIX 8 system." The answers to the LKP FAQs raise many questions that I don't think SCO wants to answer. Thanks, Disclaimer -
Where to find in the Linux kernel. Posted Aug 20, 2003 8:19 UTC (Wed) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link] Hi Bruce,I think you will find the fragment in kernel-2.4.18/linux/arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c
Where to find in the Linux kernel. Posted Aug 20, 2003 14:50 UTC (Wed) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] It's already been removed from the 2.6 code tree.
Thanks, folks Posted Aug 20, 2003 20:09 UTC (Wed) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link] The research done by various members of the community was stunningly rapid and effective. Youe analysis was a fitting capstone --well done, sir!SCO has followed a consistent pattern of responding instantly to every well-publicized criticism with an aggressively self-serving response. It's not a bad PR strategy, as these things go. But they positively stuttered on this one. It was obviously a body blow. One can easily imagine the hunted look in Stowell's and Sontag's eyes as they tried to come up with something halfway credible. What I wouldn't give for a film clip! This would be a good time for a cool counter-response, something along the lines of: "What SCO calls my 'assertions' were accompanied by a detailed analysis of the code in question. I supplied references and links so that anyone can decide for him- or herself whether I am right. As usual, SCO representatives have responded with a smokescreen, claiming that they know the origin and licensee of the purportedly stolen code, but refusing to name either. Would they care to furnish us with evidence -- any evidence -- for their claims? Why give them time to recover? Keep them off balance!
John Lions exact quotation from his book Posted Aug 20, 2003 1:21 UTC (Wed) by neurocrapper (guest, #14025) [Link] John Lions in the Acknowledgments of his 1977 6th edition(where he published UNIX source code): "To SCO Inc. who followed the philosophy of UNIX and gave permission to publish these texts and arranged for the red tape to be overcome." See this text from the book, iteslf on Amazon here: Here again, SCO works to insure their code couldn't remain secret.
John Lions exact quotation from his book Posted Aug 20, 2003 6:58 UTC (Wed) by stuart_hc (guest, #9737) [Link] Going by this page from Peer-to-Peer Communications Inc. it appears that the 6th edition was published in August 1996, not in 1977 as the Amazon page indicates. A press release from September 1996 for the publication of the 6th edition also describes SCO's help:The Santa Cruz Operation's (SCO) December 1995 acquisition of UNIX from Novell rescued the book from limbo. Michael Tilson, SCO's Chief Information Officer and President of Uniforum, understood first-hand what a treasure the book was; he helped Salus and Ritchie obtain quick permission from SCO to reprint the book.
John Lions exact quotation from his book Posted Aug 20, 2003 14:48 UTC (Wed) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] The book covers 6th Edition Unix; there's no such thing as the 6th editionof the Lions book. 6th Edition Unix came out in 1975. Lions published his book analyzing the 6th Edition Unix code in 1977, but it was only available legally to those who had a Unix source code license. In 1996, old SCO OK'd the official re-publication of Lions' book.
please chop urls? Posted Aug 20, 2003 7:24 UTC (Wed) by lyda (guest, #7429) [Link] could the lwn comments system please breakup urls? the moment someone posts one in a discussion i have to start scrolling back and forth - and i'm on a 1280x1024 screen.and could comment posters please just make links or use tinyurl systems (like this one)? to make a link you need to click the html radio button. thanks!
please chop urls? Posted Aug 20, 2003 8:53 UTC (Wed) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] Further, the url spreading the page like that was longer than it needed to be.Several sections of the query could be cut out of it, with the result being the same desired page. Here's the shortest version I came up with. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573980137/ref=lib_rd_zi_3/103-1475748-6530226?vi=reader&img=3&jumbo=1 One can omit the jumbo=1 as well, but then one gets an image to small to easily read. Of course, that's still rather long, and using a tinyurl link or using html and an appropriate tag would be better, as the OP suggested. I wouldn't have posted it here except that the damage is already done, with the even longer original URL making the page even wider.
help .. Posted Aug 20, 2003 10:19 UTC (Wed) by nx_in (guest, #14162) [Link] we need word wrap on this page ..
Another point for those colaborative articles. Posted Aug 20, 2003 10:14 UTC (Wed) by marevalo (guest, #14236) [Link] There is a free software fan that in fact signed the NDA and was given SCO proofs of this case two months ago. He wrote and published an article in Linux Journal.From this article and the Forum presentation we can conclude that in two months they are still using the same Puffer Point presentation so probably their proofs are roughly the same but now instead of talking about 20 points where the code has been copied they are talking about a million source code lines stolen. What is really amazing is that the stock hasn't plundered ... yet.
More evidence of the press's "honesty". Posted Aug 20, 2003 14:20 UTC (Wed) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] Yesterday, NEWS.COM had a big, fat article about this, where all the SCOvies got to tell how their wonderful SCO showed us all about infringement in a slide show.I don't see any articles on there today about what LWN and others have done with that slide show. Reminds me of the good old days in the 1970's. Either it's my bad eyesight, or I'm missing something? Can anyone direct me to their complaint department?
SCO's proof bogus, Linux advocate says (InfoWorld) Posted Aug 20, 2003 15:57 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "At this point it's going to be his word against ours"Hey, and what about what licences say ? I can imagine Stowell and Sontag playing with needles and a voodo doll of that reporter of Heise, but dosent this statement reveal that they are fliping out badly ?
|
|
||||||||||||