The Score is IBM - 700,000 / SCO - 326 316
The Peanut Gallery writes "After years of litigation to discover what, exactly, SCO was suing about, IBM has finally discovered that SCO's 'mountain of code' is only 326 scattered lines. Worse, most of what is allegedly infringing are comments and simple header files (like errno.h). These probably aren't copyrightable for being unoriginal and dictated by externalities and aren't owned by SCO in any event. Above and beyond that, IBM has at least five separate licenses for these elements, including the GPL, even if SCO actually owned those lines of code. In contrast IBM is able to point out 700,000 lines of code, which they have properly registered copyrights for, which SCO is infringing upon if the Court rules that it repudiated the GPL."
Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (Score:5, Informative)
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Mon Dec 22 2003 - 16:36:47 EST
[snip]
"errno.h/signal.h/ioctl.h (and they are apparently the 2.4.x versions, before we moved some common constants into "asm-generic/errno.h"), and while I haven't analyzed them, I know for a fact that
- the original errno.h used different error numbers than "original UNIX"
I know this because I cursed it later when it meant that doing things like binary emulation wasn't as trivial - you had to translate the error numbers.
- same goes for "signal.h": while a lot of the standard signals are well documented (ie "SIGKILL is 9"), historically we had lots of confusion (ie I think "real UNIX" has SIGBUS at 10, while Linux didn't originally have any SIGBUS at all, and later put it at 7 which was originally SIGUNUSED.
So to me it looks like
- yes, Linux obviously has the same signal names and error number names that UNIX has (so the files certainly have a lot of the same identifiers)
- but equally clearly they weren't copied from any "real UNIX"."
[snip]
Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Informative)
Surely you are kidding that SCOX might win. The 326 lines of codes:
#1 they dont hold Copyright on at ALL
#2 are in public domain
#3 are not even CODE!
Where as the 700,000 lines of code IBM is counter suing over ARE owned by IBM, ARE registered to them, and pretty much IBM has them by the short hairs.
As does Novell.
This is emotional to a lot of people yes. But we are also highly intelligent people who know quite a bit about this and how this came to be. While we may be emotional doesnt mean we are wrong!
Where as SCOX from day one has been wrong.
Go shill on the Yahoo board you will find no safe harbor here.
Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (Score:2, Informative)
You're obviously not a coder, are you? (Score:5, Informative)
POSIX.1, the specification, says you need to support X list of errors, and these are their names.
POSIX.1 compliance was a goal of Linux. If you RTFA carefully (or TFS) you'll note that Linus used different values for those same constants. Which, BTW, is a bone-headed move in terms of compatibility with UNIX but still within the letter of the specification. So clearly he wasn't using one as a crib sheet for the other.
This is basically like, Linus wanted to bake some cookies, so he looked at the recipe for his Mom's cookies and made a grocery list. Now his Aunt Martha has her panties in a knot because she thinks Linus stole her grocery list, because it has the same ingredients in it, because Linus' grandmother is the one who taught both his mom and his aunt how to bake chocolate chip cookies. And this is before Martha even bothers to notice that Linux is buying butterscotch chips and way too much baking soda.
Re:SCO stock (Score:2, Informative)
That is a pretty elitist statement. Given 3% correction in US markets a few weeks ago, and the subsequent actions of investors, you would be dead wrong in your analysis. bzzzzt, thanks for playing.
In case you were wondering my SCO stance: SCOX is scum and their board members, along with anyone else involved on their side from other organizations, should be criminally charged where possible in regards to this lawsuit.
Re:SCO stock (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (Score:4, Informative)
1. errno.h/signal.h and so forth were different in earlier kernels than they are today.
2. The code in question in the suit is actually from the 2.2-series kernels and may some early 2.4-series kernels -- mostly because the suit started that long ago. These kernels have the OLD errno.h, not the current one.
3. Yes, Linus wrote the original errno.h. Some of errno.h, including comments, was copied from the Lions Book. But the numbers themselves were -- much to Linus' chagrin -- picked arbitrarily and the numbers were erroneous as compared to POSIX.1. Linux has since been re-written and restructured to use the POSIX.1-compliant errno.h, and the numbers now match (for the most part), the POSIX.1 document.
Basically, yes, Linus wrote errno.h, but no, he didn't write the current errno.h, which is mostly cut-and-paste from the Single UNIX Specification.
Re:SCO stock (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Forgot #4, #5 & #6 (Score:4, Informative)
#1 they dont hold Copyright on at ALL
#2 are in public domain
#3 are not even CODE!
#4 which IBM has 5 licenses to including redistribution of the code.
#5 the license from SCO to IBM includes warranty against lawsuit
SCO included all the lines in their GPL'ed Linux products
They damn themselves (Score:2, Informative)
Re:copyrighted code! (Score:2, Informative)
if (x != 0) {
Just in case that's patented, here are a few more alternatives:
if (x != (1-1)) {
if (x != (x != x)) {
if (!!x) {
Sorry, no, this is bad news for MS (Score:4, Informative)
They funded this and it backfired. In essence this is a trial by fire for linux and the GPL and so far it seems to have stood up with flying colors.
FUD stands for Fear, uncertainty and denial. What MS absolutly does NOT want is for uncertainty about the legit nature of Linux to go away. Anymore then they want it to be made certain that the GPL is a legal license that can hold its own in court.
In the Netherlands by a place called Oudewater was a "waag" a large scale, a person acused of witchcraft could be weighed there and if the measured weight was in correspondce with their build they would be a given a certificate that they were not a witch. The unique thing about this one is that it was not fixed. Hence nobody ever was denied a certificate for obvious reasons.
Witchhunters HATED it, they rely on FUD since the facts offcourse are that witches do not exist. A unbiased scale that ALWAYS reports the persons true weight therefore is the enemy of their FUD.
And the same with SCO now, they called Linux a witch and Linux has been weighed and been given a certificate. Anyone else who now calls linux a witch is going to look extremely silly and some people might well start to ask how it comes that not a single person who has been accused and weighed has been found guilty and start to question NOT the people accused but the accusers as to their true motives.
But things don't happen fast, sucks if you are about to be burned to the stake but nowadays we don't just round up people because somebody with dubious motives tells us too. Right US of A? Right EU countries that gave the CIA free access? Right?
Re:Msft and scox have already won (Score:4, Informative)