The SCO Trial Through A New Lens 362
An anonymous reader writes "On Yahoo! News they've got an article by Paul Murphy entitled, SCO, IBM and Outcomes-Based Circular Reasoning. Murphy claims to be 'a 20-year veteran of the I.T. consulting industry, specializing in Unix and Unix-related management issues'. He writes, 'By itself this was a straightforward contractual dispute that could, and should, have been settled quickly and easily.' And that, 'Although SCO hasn't formulated its complaint in this way, I believe it could meet these, or similar, requirements quite easily and therefore has every reason to be confident that the court will eventually enforce its stop-use order against IBM.' He also goes on to insult Linux advocates by stating that, 'the position being run up the flagpole by what Stalin famously called "useful idiots" is first that the lawsuit itself is no longer a real issue and secondly that its consequences have been generally positive.'"
Bad argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad argument (Score:5, Insightful)
As to why he's wrong: 1) Linux doesn't need knowledge from the AT&T SysV code base to become world-class. 2) IBM isn't trying to contribute knowledge or source from the AT&T SysV code base to Linux.
As an aside, reverse engineering was never necessary to understand or duplicate a unix kernel and is therefore his mention of it is a complete red herring.
Regards,
Ross
Re:Bad argument (Score:5, Informative)
If he had paid attention to any of the hooplah surrounding this case, he would have known 2 things:
Re:Bad argument (Score:2)
about reasoning:
We did not see the code, it was not ours to to start with, and it was allowed any way?
Re:Bad argument (Score:3, Interesting)
We did not see the code, it was not ours to to start with, and it was allowed any way?
Try this: We did not see the [SysV] code, it was not ours to to start with, and [the BSD code] was allowed.
Now, how is this at all fallacious?
In A Nutshell (Score:2, Funny)
Would you hire this consultant? it is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Re:In A Nutshell (Score:3, Funny)
Well, maybe if I was Darl McBride...
Re:Bad argument (Score:5, Interesting)
As an aside, reverse engineering was never necessary to understand or duplicate a unix kernel and is therefore his mention of it is a complete red herring.
Not only that, it proves a vital misunderstanding of what UNIX was and is; from the start it was an operating system that had its inner workings laid completely bare and published, at least to all who asked - and later it became a specification (POSIX and the OpenGroup's UNIX trademark).
Why isn't SCOX taking on Microsoft? Windows NT 4.0 was POSIX compliant (at least in name), therefore it was cloned, and since it wasn't reverse-engineered (rather, tacked on to a VMS-kernel rip-off), Microsoft MUST have stolen SCOX' precious code, since every UNIX clone MUST be stolen, right? Right?
Re:Bad argument (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Bad argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft never purchased a license to do POSIX on NT4.0, just like they never paid for any of the BSD TCP/IP code they snagged (not that they needed, the former being a standard you don't need to license, the latter being BSD-licensed).
But that's the whole point; linux isn't a UNIX clone, and neither is NT 4.0.
Also note that buying licenses from SCOX doesn't stop them from sueing you, so they would sue Microsoft, if they weren't shills that Microsoft is bankrolling in the first place.
Re:Bad argument (Score:4, Informative)
Not public domain, but pretty danged open.
Re:Bad argument (Score:4, Interesting)
sPh
Re:Bad argument (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bad argument (Score:4, Informative)
When that entity terminated, they transferred stewardship of POSIX to the IEEE. IEEE may have copyrighted subsequent versions (but see the Veeck case), but they can't retroactively copyright US Government documents.
sPh
Re:Bad argument (Score:5, Funny)
What it needs now is:
Kirk: "Save... it... Bones... Save SCO!"
McCoy: "Damnit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a corporate shill."
Spock: "It seems highly illogical to continuing supporting this case."
Kirk: "There must... be... something we can... do... Scotty?"
Scotty: "Aye Cap'n, we'll set the phasers t' maximum FUD."
Sulu: "Haven't we tried that already..."
Kirk: "Shut up Sulu... or... you'll be wearing a red suit! Uhura, patch in a subspace channel to Microsoft. We'll need to replace our dilithium crystals with something stronger... a good dose of under the table cash."
Chekhov: "In Soviet Russia, Microsoft cashes you!"
Re:Bad argument (Score:2, Informative)
Does Godwin Apply? (Score:2)
Anyway, he ain't smokin' the same Unix I knew...
Re:Bad argument (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's start with his argument that Linux didn't spring from nothing, which is the same bit you talk about. Uhhh, nobody claimed it did and by claiming that it didn't, he is being disenginious as to what it is people are claiming. Contradict something often enough, and you'll convince people that the thing you're contradicting must exist for it to be contradicted in the first place.
You're correct that there is a difference between UNIX the API (now defined by the POSIX and Unix98 standards), and UNIX the AT&T Operating System. APIs cannot be copyrighted, trademarked or patented, although they CAN be considered trade secrets. (This is why BSD can be clean of AT&T code, but yet implement a 100% AT&T-compatiable API, and why Microsoft won't publish a complete API for Windows.)
An API is merely a specification. A description of what goes into routines and what comes out. Nothing more. It does not define HOW things are done, nor how things are organized. The former can be patented, the latter can be copyrighted. As neither apply in this case, it is a fallacy to argue that IP is material.
When you look at his book, you begin to understand the guy better. He has zero understanding of the industry, but is excellent at producing technobabble. The Unix Guide to Defenestration [winface.com] is likely to be the No. #1 worst technical book of this decade.
He brags about his 20 years as an IT consultant. Well, I like to brag too. I have 25 years, as consultant, programmer, administrator, network architect, researcher,
Could SCO have a chance after all? (Score:5, Interesting)
Something else I found interesting in the article...
To some, the fact that SCO sees Linux as a Unix clone not only makes holding that view morally wrong but requires the immediate repudiation of nonbelievers and indeed the remarketing of Linux as "not Unix" -- a move that would replace the academic and open-source heritage powering its development with a lie and thus destroy it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Could SCO have a chance after all? (Score:5, Informative)
this guy is really just spreading more SCOx FUD for them.
Re:Could SCO have a chance after all? (Score:2)
Unless it turns out he works for M$, of course.
He claims to be a Unix guy, and Unix will very soon go away, replaced by Linux. Piss off the Linux activists (who, like most activists, tend to be quite rabid and have very long memories) and he will need to learn the phrase "Would you like fries with that?".
Re:Could SCO have a chance after all? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, no, he's just wrong. Nobody cares if Linux is a "clone" of Unix. SCO sees Linux as a derivative work of Unix because it implements the same interfaces. This view has been repudiated not just by Linux advocates but also by the courts.
And no, so far to my knowledge SCO has presented nothing resembling real evidence. That's the reason they have to keep asking for more discovery and versions of AIX to prove a convoluted "the code is derived from ours but doesn't look anything like it anymore" hypothesis. IBM seems to be taking great glee in pointing out SCO's lack of evidence in their filings.
There was a time when it was reasonable to believe that SCO could have an actual case. That time is long past. Some people are just slow.
Re:Could SCO have a chance after all? (Score:2)
Re:Could SCO have a chance after all? (Score:2)
Re:Could SCO have a chance after all? (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. Interfaces are considered non-copyrightable because they are required to be the same for compatability. I forget the precise legal wording, but interfaces are descriptive of what something is supposed to do, not expressive of how it works. Suffice to say this theory of SCO, despite playing this up in the press, only tried this once in court, and was smacked for it.
Re:Could SCO have a chance after all? (Score:2)
Re:Could SCO have a chance after all? (Score:2)
Re:Could SCO have a chance after all? (Score:2)
Re:Could SCO have a chance after all? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, for one thing, I'll be really, really happy that I've cornered the heating oil market in Hades!
Re:Could SCO have a chance after all? (Score:2)
Mr Murphy is saying SCO has a claim based on eyes that tell, yet it's a claim SCO already abandon this claim. My guess is because IBM has already shown that the Unix team did notwork on/with the Linux team.
My guess is
Re:Could SCO have a chance after all? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know it's a hard concept for the non-techie to grasp, but it goes like this:
UNIX is a trademarked word. UNIX is also a POSIX compliant operating system. In order to be a posix compliant operating system, an operating system must follow X, Y, and Z criteria. Linux follows X, Y, and Z criteria. Linux is a POSIX compliant operating system. The Linux code has been built from scratch with the aim of being POSIX compliant. Since the POSIX standard is based on the UNIX operating system, Linux is a relative of, but not a derivitive of, UNIX.
That's not exactly it, but it's close enough, and simple enough, that a reporter can digest it.
So, in some ways, you could say "Linux is a UNIX clone". In the same ways, you could say "Margarine is a Butter clone". Margarine was built from scratch, using entirely different ingrediants than butter, but with the aim of looking, smelling, and tasting like butter. But, margarine is not butter. However, I don't think anyone who went around calling margarine "Not Butter" is going to kill either industry.
So, I'm not even sure I know what this guy is trying to say. It sounds like he thinks that we are mad that SCO says linux is a unix clone. I don't know a linux user that would be bothered by this statement. All we (as linux users) are saying is "Linux contains no stolen copyrighted code from Unix", and "Linux is not Unix". And maybe a "Linux is similar enough in function to Unix that they share a computing standard".
~Will
Re:Could SCO have a chance after all? (Score:5, Funny)
So, in some ways, you could say "Linux is a UNIX clone". In the same ways, you could say "Margarine is a Butter clone".
So maybe we should be saying "I can't believe it's not UNIX!"
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Could SCO have a chance after all? (Score:4, Funny)
will they make a spray and hire a model whos nose attracts birds?
Spray-on Unix substitute? You, dear fellow, are genius embodied.
It appears he doesn't grok (Score:2, Insightful)
The Thousand Faces of Darl McBride (Score:5, Funny)
"Murphy claims to be 'a 20-year veteran of the I.T. consulting industry, specializing in Unix and Unix-related management issues'."
Man, Darl's got more personalities than a Sweeps Week episode of "The Love Boat". [loveboatonline.com]
He's missing the point (Score:4, Funny)
Admittedly, the word "idiots" may not be totally inapplicable in some of those cases (and "useful" is also debatable) but the benefits were certainly there.
The epic struggle (Score:4, Interesting)
In Darl's infamous open letter [sco.com], he clearly defines the combatants:
Despite the raw emotions, however, the issue is clear: do you support copyrights and ownership of intellectual property as envisioned by our elected officials in Congress and the European Union, or do you support "free" - as in free from ownership - intellectual property envisioned by the Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and others? There really is no middle ground. The future of the global economy hangs in the balance.
This is not a disinterested "I'm just thinking about my shareholders" approach. After bringing in discussion about competing interpretations of the Constitution, Darl ends the monologue with this:
We take these actions secure in the knowledge that our system of copyright laws is built on the foundation of the U.S. Constitution and that our rights will be protected under law. We do so knowing that those who believe "software should be free" cannot prevail against the U.S. Congress and voices of seven U.S. Supreme Court justices who believe that "the motive of profit is the engine that ensures the progress of science."
The stated intent of SCO is to eliminate free software, because SCO views the mere existence of free software as incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. To me that's about as extreme a position as you can take, given that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that creators are not free to give away their works as they see fit.
Re:He's missing the point (Score:4, Informative)
But you must've missed it back in Nov when PJ resigned from Open Source Risk Management, which is what you're clearly referring to. You really should read her reasons [groklaw.net]. It will make you feel very very guilty. That is, if you were honestly misinformed, and not trying to spread nasty rumors.
At any rate, in my mind, PJ's esaay in the link above was an amazingly inspirational act. You'll know what I mean when I say that she's a real role model, not deserving of this kind of smear.
Congress should protect Open Source (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Congress should protect Open Source (Score:2)
Re:Congress should protect Open Source (Score:5, Funny)
$ echo "dream" | su congress -c 'chmod 444 open\ source'
done. what next?
Re:Congress should protect Open Source (Score:2)
Thankfully OSS is now gaining many freinds in big business
Promote OSS , test many of its foundations , make alot of lawyers rich, Make the SCO CEO and freinds rich
Most importantly though it has been a major case that by its very nature may convert a few people in the
Re:Congress should protect Open Source (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Congress should protect Open Source (Score:2)
From the article... (Score:5, Interesting)
The crux of the matter is this: IBM does not have to prove previous processes were uncontaminated to win the case -- rather, the burden is on SCO to prove that they were, and they don't appear to have come up with anything substantial. Perhaps this is a wake-up call to open source developers to vet submitted code carefully, but I don't believe the wishful thinking is coming from the Linux camp.
What an idiot. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. (Score:2)
Accept my appologies.
Phoenix and IBM (Score:2)
So, among other things, it was harder for Phoenix to explain away any similarities in source code than if the only available BIOS code was binary.
Re:What an idiot. (Score:4, Interesting)
The point is that it's a *defence* which an alleged infringer can bring up *after* the complainant shows the copied code. You don't argue from lack of clean room to copyright infringement - it's absurd without first showing the copied code.
As the parent post says; when your reimplementing something, chances are you will create identical code because there are only so many ways to implement various functions.
Conjecture based on "WAG" and not research (Score:5, Informative)
The reason Tannenbaum apparently gave Linus a "C" for his kernel hack probably wouldn't have been that the code was bad or derivative, but that he disapproved of sacrificing design elegance for a performance benefit available only on the x86.
Here is what Tannenbaum really said:-I still maintain the point that designing a monolithic kernel in 1991 is a fundamental error. Be thankful you are not my student. You would not get a high grade for such a design :-)
Note the smiley.Re:Conjecture based on "WAG" and not research (Score:2)
Tannenbaum will be right eventually anyway. (Score:3, Insightful)
Tannenbaum was merely ahead of his time. We're already almost in an age where the operating system overhead is pretty minimal, and the latest advances in microkernels put message passing almost on a par with direct context switching anyway.
What this means is that, at some point in the not too distant future, the monolithic k
Re:Tannenbaum will be right eventually anyway. (Score:4, Informative)
Negotiations to settle the issue? (Score:5, Informative)
I find it hard that you have to negotiate to settle an issue when you are completely in the clear by the terms of the contract.
SCO's interpretation of the contract is so overbroad that it is absurd. The definitions they are using for the terms are completely different from the normal usage of the same terms.
For example, a derivative work incorporates the original work or elements of the original work. But SCO takes the view, with nothing in the contract to support them, that developing your own code to run under their UNIX makes it a derivative work even though it has never contained any element of the original work.
He has a pretty selective understanding.. (Score:5, Informative)
And what really happend:
SCO issued a stop-use order with the 100-day hiatus, but failed to include in that order an explanation of what IBM did wrong, or how they could correct it as required under the contract, and so therefore IBM neither changed its behavior nor embarked on good-faith negotiations to settle the issue, because SCO never gave them that option.
If SCO's case were a slam-duno against IBM (Score:2, Insightful)
Surely SCO has enough lawyers, and I bet all of them know more about IP law than Paul "Who the fuck am I, again?" Murphy.
Third Paragraph Says It All (Score:5, Interesting)
If you read the beginning of the article, it sounds like the author assumes that SCO is in the right, but that has yet to be proven. I thought that's what courts were for.
Re:Third Paragraph Says It All (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Third Paragraph Says It All (Score:2)
In fact, if it was written on April 29, 2003, the writer would not know anything about what happened or didn't happen within the 100 days.
Two years ago? Where is that information? (Score:2)
CIO Today says "April 28, 2005 2:30PM" (Score:2)
One fundamental point... (Score:2)
Useful Idiots (Score:2)
I can't say I agree with him. This is a bit more complicated on the contract side of things. I think that this is more a projection of how he would like things to be.
I know more than a few Unix admins from the 80's that wish for the old days. Most like the comfort of a large company to provide software. Software like food is better when someone makes i
The Author Missed A Point (Score:2, Insightful)
A fundimental misreading of copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is the way established law actually works. I can buy a copyrighted book, change every sentence and chapter in it until there is nothing left of the original work, and then release it as my own. By that point, it is my own. You cannot copyright people's inspiration. It is silly to try.
Re: Mod parent up (Score:2)
Where does he get this stuff? (Score:5, Interesting)
Says you. I can see how an entity might be on firmer legal ground if they adopt the procedure you've outlined. However, to say that legal reverse engineering "requires" two teams is a total fabrication.
What a troll article.
In breaking news SCO hires a cleaning person. (Score:5, Insightful)
Next week at Playboy on line. The women of SCO.
The suite has been setup by SCO as Linux is evil and belongs to us and we will sue all the users that do no pay us.
There are no Linux advocates involved with the court case it is Freaking IBM that is involved.
Here is what happened.
Someone convinced SCO that Linux could only have gotten so good by stealing SCO's code. SCO was going down fast and grabbed that straw with the hopes that IBM would just buy them to shut them up.
IBM knew that SCO did not have a case so it decided to make an example of them.
SCO trying to get more people to pony up attacked any deep pockets that it could. Autozone and other show the court that SCO had nothing so that backfired.
Frankly at this point I really want to believe that McBride really did believe that IBM had stolen the code. I would like to think that he has just backed himself into a corner and can not see anyway out. The only other answer is he is delusional.
Stalin is not the source of "Useful Idiots" (Score:5, Informative)
"Lenin, it is said, once described left-liberals and social democrats as 'useful idiots,' and for years anti-communists have used the phrase to describe Soviet sympathizers in the West, sometimes suggesting that Lenin himself talked about 'useful idiots in the West.' But the expression does not appear in Lenin's writing. We get queries on 'useful idiots of the West' all the time, declared Grant Harris, senior reference librarian at the Library of Congress, in the spring of 1987. We have not been able to identify this phrase among his published works."
The source of this passage is a work entitled "They Never Said It: a Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions", authored by Paul F. Boller Jr. and John George, published by Oxford University Press in 1989. The text goes on to explain that the phrase apparently first appeared in a John Birch Society pamphlet labeling President Ronald Reagan a "useful idiot" because of some agreement he had negotiated with the Soviet Union.
btw, most of Lenin's writings are available for searching at http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ [marxists.org]
Questionable premise (Score:4, Informative)
"According to SCO, it is the legal successor to AT&T..."
That is a fact in dispute. It seems the rest of the article is founded on this premise.
If SCO does not "own" Unix, then the arguments in the article fall flat.
New Lens? (Score:2)
Old saying... (Score:2)
It's not "circular" reasoning. I could have told you that SCO losing would make the whole thing positive for Linux. But, I was too busy being enraged at the fact that, with the US legal system, it was possible (still is possible) for companies like SCO to win.
Perhaps it's time... (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone know of a similar comparison by IBM comparing AIX and Linux?
If they haven't done one, perhaps it's time for one. While they couldn't publish examples of the code, but they could do a similar comparison and post the results only.
I hate amateur Sovietologists! (Score:5, Informative)
It was Lenin who said that and he actually didn't say it. It was invented by the John Birch Society to describe Ronald Regan.
Source [wolfgangvonskeptik.mu.nu]
There is much more evidence that Lenin referred to them instead as "Deaf Mutes" which is much less of a marketable term for the anti-communists to use in describing how communists view their dupes.
Article that Makes Reference to the Deaf Mutes Quote [tripod.com]. This quote was also referenced by Theodore Radzinsky in his Stalin Biography as being authentic.
"The so-called cultural element of Western Eurpoe and America are incapable of comprehening the present state of affairs and the actual balance of forces; these elements must be regarded as deaf-mutes and treated accordingly....
(The Lufkin News, King Featurers Syndicate, Inc., 31 July 1962, p. 4, as quoted by the Freeman Report, 30 Sept. 1973, p. 8).
His other works and his forum. (Score:5, Interesting)
I liked his part about (Score:4, Insightful)
Me, I've read the correspondence filed with the Court on the subject. IBM asked what they were supposed to have done wrong so that they could remedy the problem, SCOX told them they'd see them in court.
Yeah, that's bad faith on IBM's part all right. Here we are more than two years later and IBM is still trying to get the Court to make SCOX tell them what IBM is supposed to have done wrong, so far with no luck.
It IS a simple contract dispute. (Score:2)
Novell have a contract with SCOX saying they never bought that copyright, and that even if they did, Novell can prohibit them from sueing people.
Novell told SCOX to quit, SCOX didn't.
Looks pretty clear-cut to me.
Interesting quote on Paul Murphy's forum (Score:5, Informative)
Re: SCO V. IBM -Thursday April 28/05
Author: Robert Weiler (204.247.40.---)
Date: 04-29-05 16:45
Dear Paul,
I have over 25 years in the software business, most of it on Unix systems and I have worked for two SVR4 licensees. It was very clear at both of these companies that code that we created belonged to us and that AT&T did not control it in any way. The only copright notices that we placed in our code was our own, not AT&T's. This is explicit in IBM's agreement, and it was made explicit in the $echo newsletter. The notion that SCO controls the subsequent work product of everybody that has ever seen Unix source is complete nonsense and would in fact be illegal restraint of trade in most states. Your notion seems to be even more expansive than SCO's; as I read your argument, any code that ever ran on AIX and was subsequently ported to Linux would belong to AT&T. This idea is so silly it doesn't even merit a response, so I'm asuming that I've misinterpreted what you wrote.
SCO's notion of what constitutes a derivative work is not only completely at odds with the SOFT aggreements, it is at odds with copyright law. If the only thing that SCO has is a few suggestive emails and the 'mental tainiting' argument that you espouse, then IBM will win on summary judgement as a matter of law. And according to Judge Kimall, that is apparently all they have.
Finally I should note that even if SCO were to prevail on their contract dispute with IBM, it means absolutely nothing to Linux. At worse, the offending code is removed, any liability is IBM's.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would inform yourself on the issues of this case and write a followup article. Every CIO should be evaluating a migration from Windows and proprietary Unix to Linux as the cost savings are dramatic. It would be very, very unfortunate if any CIO delayed a transition to Linux based on misinformation about SCO's legal propects which are virtually nonexistant.
Even if he's right (ob. simp. quo.) (Score:2)
Hutz: Mr. Burns, we've got witnesses, precedent and a paper trail a mile long.
Burns: Yes. But I have ten high-priced lawyers.
Hutz: Ya, ya, yaaa!!! [runs out of office]
Homer: He left his briefcase. Hey, it's full of shredded newspaper.
At least he's consistent: 5/2003: "SCO slam dunk" (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not calling Mr. Graham a troll or shill. Just wrong. Consistently wrong on this issue.
Sorry for the LISP, it's P. Murphy, not Graham (Score:3, Informative)
The SCO trial through Beer Goggles (Score:4, Insightful)
The man makes wild assumptions based on loose guesses he himself made, where-as 20 minutes with google would have produced facts to write an article that would have had some merit. Most of what he rants on about are flat-out wrong. He knows nothing about linux and I strongly suspect his claims about Unix experience.
I am very interested in how supposedly linux supporters are suddenly claiming that Linux is not unix as he mentions in the article? From what I remember this has been the norm cince 1994 when I started dabbling in it and I bet that if someone looked they would find even earlier evidence of that fact.
that article tarnishes not only the writers reputation but the publication that carried it.
O'Reilly Rip-off? (Score:2)
It's true! O.O (Score:3, Funny)
{
}
There are THOUSANDS of these in the Linux code!
A new shill. (Score:2)
Author ignores a number of inconvenient facts (Score:5, Informative)
First, and foremost, SCO's bluster about Linux and copyright infringement predates their lawsuit against IBM. Whether or not IBM violated its contract with SCO is not the community's beef with SCO; the community is up in arms because SCO had the gall to suggest that Linux was a big ripoff of SCO's proprietary unix code and began to do things like sell linux licenses, as if it had some right to collect that money. So this is not merely a "simple contract dispute".
Moreover, he is skewing the origin of Linux. Regardless of the author's qualifications, the two people most able to state whether or not Linux was or was not dervied from Minix or contained Minix code would certainly be Linus Torvalds and Andrew Tannenbaum. Tannenbaum said, "I told [Ken Brown, President of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution] that MINIX had clearly had a huge influence on Linux in many ways, from the layout of the file system to the names in the source tree, but I didn't think Linus had used any of my code." [cs.vu.nl] Eric Raymond may have been citing this to make a point, but when Linus and Andrew both are clear on the point that Linux did not use Minix code, then I believe take their assertions on that point.
The assertions about due diligence are equally off-base, as the Open Source Risk Management company is offering insurance against claims of copyright infringement. It is basically absurd to suggest they could get millions and millions of dollars of insurance underwritten without due diligence against the product they were insuring - which, in this case, is the code that comprises Linux.
Finally, the author completely ignores how unclean SCO is with its own source management. They distributed a version of Linux for quite some time, and continued to distribute it even after they had made public claims. If they had discovered claims but continued to distribute the code, one could quite easily argue (and surely IBM will) that they have themselves have placed whatever code is in question under the GPL.
This only touches on the number of issues he manages to gloss over in a few brief pages. By no means do I think that David Boies would have been involved on contingency unless he felt he had some chance of winning, but the fact is, SCO is bleeding money like tomorrow's bacon, and it is hard to imagine how anyone would care to purchase a real product from SCO in the future, given their propensity to do things like, say, sue their customers [usatoday.com].
Certainly, at this point, Canopy can only be hoping that the payoff from the lawsuit against IBM and other actions will be sufficient to justify flushing the company. But even *if* SCO managed to prove IBM contributed tainted code, there's a mountain of counterclaims to deal with and SCO has to try to establish damages, and it's hard to see how SCO can justify damages that are a significant multiple of its own market capitalization at the time the offense occurred. It would be like Harold Welte suing Asus for $2B [gpl-violations.org] or such. It may sound like a nice round number, and SCO can say that it wants "infinity times infinity" for damages, but that doesn't give it a snowball's chance in hell of actually seeing such damages.
Public Relations Spin (Score:5, Insightful)
If SCO could... (Score:3, Interesting)
But here is what it actually comes down to: what SCO has done, and is doing -- indeed the only thing they *can* do...
SCO has proved through this absurd circus-show that they are motivated by profit margins, political assassination of FOSS, and spreading FUD about the whole Linux development community.
And what is this whole talk about when Linux "... became a new kernel by March of 1991 and a whole new Unix clone when file system processing was internalized in June." That is the pivot point that makes Linux a "UNIX clone?"
Linux is anything but a "UNIX clone." We could point to a lot of things that linux is *kind of like*. Linux is kind of like BSD, or Minix, or even some parts are like UNIX -- but it is anything but a "UNIX clone" -- linux is a GNU clone, hence whole NotUnix thing (get the acronym?).
The overall article speaks of somebody who has a command over *NIX rhetoric, but very little command over what makes a *NIX and how they work. He shows a little knowledge of AT&T UNIX history, but very little knowledge of a *NIX varient in terms of technology and development.
It is ironic that Paul Murphy references the 1982 IBM legal case. The conclusion that he positing -- potential SCO victory over IBM -- would be the tipping point that would thrust us away from FOSS progress and back into the land of proprietary obfuscation -- the exact opposite from what IBM's defeat in 1982 meant to the tech world. Instead of gaining freedom from proprietary operating systems we would be gaining again the time when one (or at least very few) companies could hold total control over where and what computers do and making us pay for it at the same time. No offense Mr. Murphy, but after being a "20-year veteran of the I.T. consulting industry..." you would think you would have gained one thing: a clue.
Here's the deal: (Score:3, Informative)
IBM claims the following:
1. SCO is not the successor in interest of AT&T.
2. IBM did not contribute copyrighted AT&T code to Linux.
3. IBM did not contribute AT&T 'derived' code to Linux, whatever derived means.
4. Had IBM contributed derived code to linux, it would be legal.
5. Had IBM contributed AT&T's code to Linux, it would be legal.
So far, SCO has not succesfully beaten any of those claims. In fact, SCO has had a great deal of difficulty producing any evidence whatsoever regarding these claims. IBM only had to win one of those claims in order to get the case dismissed.
I must be getting cynical (Score:3, Insightful)
Murphy claims to be 'a 20-year veteran of the I.T. consulting industry, specializing in Unix and Unix-related management issues'.
and translated it
Murphy claims to be 'a 20-year veteran of the I.T. consulting industry', so it's been 20 years since he's done anything but produce fluffy white papers for non-technical management.
Re:Mod root Troll -1 (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, no (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand, all you need to do to prove that Linux is not a copy of SCO is compare the source. They're different. Linux does not infringe SCO's copyright, and it never did.
He also confuses Trademarks and Copyrights. He says "Linux is Unix" because it does what Unix does. But when people say "Linux isn't Unix" they're talking about trademarks.
Imagine if Coca-Cola sued pepsi for violating their trade secrets or something. You wouldn't say "Pepsi is Coca-cola because it tastes kind of like Coca-cola.". No, Pepsi is a Cola (that's the name of the flavor of Coca-cola, pepsi, RC-cola and so on). You can't make the argument that Pepsi tastes like coke, and because you want to call it Coca-cola, then Pepsi is violating Coke's trademarks. That would be retarded. This isn't a "new" perspective, it's just some retards musings.
Re:Sorry, no (Score:2)
Re:Sorry, no (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sorry, no (Score:2)
I stopped reading after that, because it was quite stupid.
Oh, it gets stupider, towards the bottom he tries to claim that (I'm paraphrasing) the code inspections of Linux don't provide evidence that the development process has been uncontaminated, and to claim that they do provide such evidence is "the kind of outcomes-based circular reasoning that leads to conspiracy theories", but he never describes what he finds circular about it. I never cease to be disgusted by how effective straw-man attacks [nizkor.org] can b
Re:I used to work for this guy... (Score:5, Informative)
The Peter Principle is where you get promoted because you're good at what you do until you become incompetent at your new position and stagnate.
The Dilbert Principle is probably what you mean. You're a total dumbass, therefore you get promoted to management.
Re:I used to work for this guy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since no one has seen fit to respond to this so far, let me point out emphatically that this post is making an an outrageous and completely unsubstantiated accusation, and it is a lousy, indecent thing to be doing to Paul Murphy. You may or may not like what he says about SCO, but he most certainly does not deserve an anonymous accusation of attempted rape.
I frankly would like to meet the person who wrote this post, so that I could give him solid kick in the ass. I'm not using a figure of speech here. Far from acknowledging any "obvious reasons", Mr. Anonymous Accuser, I say that you are loathsome coward, and you damn well better come back with something more substantial, or shut your filthy mouth.
As for you moderators who modded the post up to 5 Interesting, I submit that you are among the stupidest morons ever to visit Slashdot. If anything deserves a -1 Troll, this is it.
As for the question of whether or not the accusation is true, in the absence of any verifiable evidence there is no reason at all to consider such a possibility. To make any such assumption about Paul Murphy on the basis of an anonymous accusation is so unfair as to be utterly indecent.
I never thought I would attack someone for an anonymous post, because I'm often irritated by all of the pithy sigs about how anonymous posters cannot be believed. In almost all cases, that's a logical fallacy, because the merit of post in a discussion group lies solely in the strength of the evidence and arguments it presents, which usually has nothing at all to do with the identity of the poster. The only situation in which the anonymity of the poster detracts from his credibility is when his identity is one of the issues addressed in his post.
But this is precisely that kind of situation. Someone here is saying that he knows Paul Murphy personally and is accusing him of a crime, but the accuser won't tell us who he is and how he supposedly knows these things. That kind of crap deserves no credibility until the poster comes back and tells us why we should believe anything he says.
Re:Code from minix? (Score:3, Informative)