Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Demands Linux 2.7 Information

Comments Filter:
  • Okay . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

    by failure-man (870605) <failuremanNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @02:26PM (#13980490)
    SCO does not, and has never had a firm grip on reality. This is news?
  • by daniel_mcl (77919) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @02:27PM (#13980508) Homepage
    What do you want to bet that once the 2.7 kernel does come out that SCO points at the IBM contributions and claims perjury? Actually, that's probably the strategy they're going with here in the first place.
  • by conJunk (779958) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @02:28PM (#13980513)
    Sure, it's funny. SCO is caught looking like fools. Ha ha. But maybe not such a big deal.

    Document requests in discovery are governed by Rule 34 [cornell.edu]. One of the provisions of this rule is that the respondant has 30 days to answer the document request.

    IBM will say "sorry, we don't have any of the documents you've requested because they don't exist"

    Sure SCO looks bad, but i don't think this is a case of everybody "laughing so hard we won't be able to hear you if you mumble" as TFA suggests.

  • Still damaging (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vlijmen Fileer (120268) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @02:30PM (#13980530)
    To most of us, SCO has been purely laughable for a long time already.
    But as long as it can stay in the news, it will keep damaging Linux's reputation; other pepole keep hearing the general news of "Linux being under attack".
    The big question, and what we should hope for is: when will SCO's whining /ever/ stop?
  • Typos (Score:3, Insightful)

    by happyemoticon (543015) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @02:31PM (#13980550) Homepage

    While I usually go easy on people for making typographical errors like this, and dislike nit-picking over such things by an online community of hecklers, it's pretty funny.

    FYI, to those who haven't scanned the pdf, they also request:

    "All documents concerning IBM's contributions to" ten specific Linux projects, including "development work," and "all documents concerning contributions to Linux" through several additional specific Linux projects.

    So it doesn't seem to indicate that the memo is null and void, or that the lawyers don't know anything about technology, just that the lawyers are being very hasty and don't check their facts. Of course, SCO has not demonstrated much regard for "facts" at all in this case.

  • by failure-man (870605) <failuremanNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @02:32PM (#13980554)
    No court on earth would ever buy that. Judges do understand the fact that reality changes over time.

    (Although, if SCO does push the "Linux 2.7" thing, which they may be stupid and/or high enough to do, it would be some nice smartassitude to jump a version number to piss them off.)
  • No Plan? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by alfrin (858861) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @02:32PM (#13980558)
    Said who?
    Why are we assuming that, since we're in the 2.6 branch that they have no intention of moving into a 2.7.
    Isn't that called development?Second of all, why would IBM have information about it? And why does SCO care?
  • by sammy baby (14909) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @02:37PM (#13980601) Journal
    Quoting from SCO's motion, which is reprinted in TFA, emphasis mine:
    • All documents concerning IBM's contributions to" ten specific Linux projects, including "development work," and "all documents concerning contributions to Linux" through several additional specific Linux projects.
    • "All documents concerning IBM's contributions to the Linux 2.7 kernel," including "development work."
    • "All documents concerning IBM's contributions to any development tree for Linux," including the "development trees" themselves.

    The boldfaced line is the only one in the motion where the "2.7" appears.

    Now, do you really think that they intended to demand code contributed to a nonexistent project? Or that perhaps, just maybe, someone fat-fingered "2.6?"

    In other words, this is most likely just a silly typo. Nothing to see, move along.
  • by happyemoticon (543015) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @02:37PM (#13980621) Homepage

    Actually, hasn't it been traditional (at least recently) for stable branches to be even versions (2.2, 2.4, 2.6) and dev branches to be odd? Then I remember some story about breaking that tradition by putting experimental code right into the 2.6 branch. Given those two conditions, the next logical release WOULD be 2.8.

  • The Big Issue (Score:4, Insightful)

    by augustz (18082) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @03:02PM (#13980868) Homepage
    The big big issue in this is the order in which discovery is occuring.

    In a normal court case, when you file the case you need to identify with specificity what your claim is.

    In this case, at a minimum, SCO should have detailed, with specificity, what code they beleive is copyright / contract violated and why during the discovery process by now.

    This 2.7 thing is a nitpick honestly. The fact that IBM probably has only a limited clue on the details of the copyright and contract claims is a much much bigger deal.

    These claims need to be detailed so they can be addressed. They need to identify WHAT Sco says it owns, WHICH contract provision were violated etc.

    Surprised there hasn't been more of an effort in this area, and am almost certain that whatever SCO comes with up will continue to be vague. Make that a predicition, IBM will file a motion for clarification after fact discovery ends. They should be getting this on the judges radar NOW however.

    Interesting case though.
  • coupla thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quadraginta (902985) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @03:02PM (#13980874)
    IANAL, but I've seen the inside of the Courtroom, alas.

    First of all, the Court generally allows very wide latitude in discovery, certainly including such wild speculative fishing trips as this one. The principle is that the parties should have maximal access to any information that could even conceivably help their case. Not just in the interests of justice, that is, so that the parties can make the best case they can, but also in the interests of finality. You don't want the loser appealing the judgment or otherwise coming back to Court again because they can argue some sliver or other of information wasn't available, and if it had been it might've made all the difference, blah blah blah. You want people to believe the Court gave the losing party every conceivable imaginable chance to make their case -- and they just couldn't.

    IBM knows this, too, of course, and that is why they cooperate in the discovery, and why they won't settle. They want the SCO lawyers to make the very best case that can possible be made, so that after SCO loses, this issue is dead, dead, dead and no one will even think about bringing another case like it ever again, and no Court will ever entertain it. IBM does not hire stupid lawyers.
  • Re:So embarassing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Grishnakh (216268) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @03:02PM (#13980875)
    Sorry, but this doesn't make America great at all. Things that were done in the distant past are not a reason to respect something or someone today. Yes, America's founders were wise men with great ideas, but guess what? That was over 225 years ago. Rome had some great achievements too, but you don't see anyone talking about how great the empire of Rome is now do you? Or what about the Greeks? They sure did some amazing things too, several thousand years ago.

    What's important today is what America is doing today. What great things has America done recently (as in the last 10 years; usually people want to talk about WWII for some reason, which was over long before they were born)? As an American, I can't think of a whole lot.
  • by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @03:11PM (#13980965)
    Remember the whole exercise, from Darl's perspective, is to keep things alive for as long as possible to keep pumping money into legal fees etc. The best way to do this is to open up a new can of worms.
  • Re:More like... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Angry Mick (632931) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:13PM (#13981621) Homepage
    SCO HAS demanded access to information/code that a developer (who may have existed) may have written on a computer that may not have been uploaded to a server because it may have been in a "sandbox" and THAT code may be the code necessary for SCO to "prove" its case.
    Because maybe that maybe developer may have done something that may not have been allowed under a contract that may have covered what that maybe developer may have done on a machine that might have existed, in a sandbox that might have existed, that may not have any other record.

    You know, at times, you almost have to feel some sympathy for the lawyers and judges trying to cypher this crap out. I mean, Jesus Christ, that nearly made my head explode.

  • by DrJimbo (594231) * on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @07:05PM (#13983458)
    Or it could be part of a ploy by IBM. They could have included references to the non-existent Linux 2.7 in privileged communications they sent to SCO "by mistake". There has already been a lot of bruhaha in this case about privilege logs and misuse of privileged information.

    It could well be that IBM had already prepped the judges and told them that if SCO brings up questions about Linux 2.7 then it indicates that they have been unlawfully using IBM's privileged information. If so, it's clobberin' time!.

  • Re:So embarassing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by el-spectre (668104) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @07:52PM (#13983866) Journal
    Yes. Yes I do. The very fact that you can casually refer to ancient Greece and Rome and be understood actually says a lot about HOW great they were, and that they have been considered so for quite a long time.

Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no guarantee of eventual success.

Working...