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."
SCO stock (Score:2)
Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Funny)
It would be interesting to watch SCOs stock. If it starts rising, it means investors are seeing it from their side, and seeing them as the winner here. Investors are detached emotionally, and will probably make a better call than any slashbotter.
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: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
Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Interesting)
They only win the suit if they can somehow convince the judge that none of IBM's licenses apply, including the GPL. And if they convince the judge that the GPL doesn't apply, then they are now liable for the 700,000 lines of IBM code that SCO has appropriated.
So, no, they can't win.
Re:SCO stock (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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 organizat
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad the people who invested most in this circus won't really sue them because they knew full well this was only an effort to smear the reputation of Linux and other free software. The fact they won't sue is enough evidence of a conspiracy.
As for Darl, I would offer him a deal to walk free if he could produce enough evidence for the government to go after Microsoft's top execs. There is little gain in making him pay, but having enough evidence to do a couple arrests the top ranks at MS would be well worth it.
We must only be careful not to hit him from too many directions, but hit him very hard from a few. Unless he has a hope of walking free, he won't lead us to his bosses. It must be possible to offer him a deal.
Things like these should never be repeated. The people behind this must be stopped.
Re:SCO stock (Score:4, Funny)
Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's talk about investor rationality and that "3% correction" you speak of.
What prompted that correction? Was it a well-reasoned analysis of market exposure, followed by an orderly transfer of assets from the stock market to another form of investment?
No. The stampede in Shanghai was caused by "a rumor about capital gains tax." [chinadaily.com.cn] Apparently, an unfounded rumor.
The dive in the Chinese market prompted a corresponding selloff in the U.S., the large volume of which prompted a technical "glitch" [ecommercetimes.com] in the NYSE's messaging system. That glitch caused an apparent instant freefall in the DJIA (apparently, backlogged trade messages from over an hour's worth of trading processed suddenly in 3 minutes)--which prompted panic selling.
So, no, I see very little to commend the cool nerves and clear thinking of the investing community.
The markets are fueled, first and foremost, on the tension between greed and fear. Never forget that.
Your post is just silly (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO was flat out lying. If I run a file comparison utility over several million lines of code, and I find 326 identical lines (most of which are things like #include ) and then say that IBM stole thousands of lines of code, I'm lying my @$$ off. It's similar to me saying you owe me a million dollars because you borrowed $5 for lunch one day. Or calling you a gay prostitute because your wife dragged you to see Brokeback Mountain. Or saying I have proof Jedi are real after watching the 'Star Wars Kid' video. (Do I really need to continue? How is gross exaggeration NOT flat out lying?)
Point 2.
It is interesting to watch SCO stock. My bet is that it goes down a notch, and it seems to be doing that so far today (but just barely). Investors tend to be just as stupid and emotionally attached to things as anyone else. (Succesful investors are less so, just like some of the better
Re:Your post is just silly (Score:4, Funny)
The Better posts (Score:3, Insightful)
We're all geniuses here (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO put enough fear into huge corporations such as SUN, HP and major web ho
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Insightful)
Novell needs every penny they can get, and it wouldn't surprise me if they sell whatever rights they still have to their new bed partner, Microsoft, who is then free to go after anyone (except Novell) for allegedly copying code from both Unix and DOS/Windows to Linux.
Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Interesting)
The internet version of severed head on a pike. I like it!
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on if they own or lease their digs in Utah. Usually used office furniture usually goes pretty cheap in lots. Recyclers may be interested in all the shredded paper...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been under a dollar a share for a few days now. If it continues, it could lead to delisting. Look for SCOX if you want to track it on a ticker. However, in the past SCO did a reverse split and they could always do another one and convert 2 or 3 shares to 1 and get back over a dollar a share to avoid delisting. Then again, Wall Street has frankly been insane in supporting this stock and I wouldn't be surprised at all by Monday or even today (early trends are actually up for the stock today) for it to be worth over a dollar a share again. I'm hoping for a delisting as that would hurt SCO immensely, but I'm not holding my breath. A stock market that has believed against all rational thought for years that SCO has some value is unlikely to be smart enough to realize by now that the game is almost over and start getting out while they can.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As you suspect there isn't much hope for delisting. The stock has to be under $1 for 30 trading
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SCO stock (Score:4, Insightful)
As to Wall Street's attitude, it's pretty clear that it has been wishful thinking all along. They despise open source, and Linux in particular, and despite every sign of a stock scam, they chose to back SCO on a course which can only lead to the bottom of the sewer. The investment community had been warned from the very start by the experts that SCO didn't have a case, and for Christ's sake, what kind of investment community backs a company whose sole business plan is extorting licensing fees based on highly dubious copyright claims that hadn't even be tested in court?
Re: (Score:2)
How a company with no case at all and a marketcap of 237,5M USD can be so stupid as to sue a company with a market cap of 140B USD is beyond me.
I mean, there simply cannot be another reason than to inflate the stockprice. Five years ago they were at $40, now they are at $2.50.
Re: (Score:2)
Last post was wrong, was looking at the wrong stock (was looking at SCOR)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SCO stock (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Congrats [yahoo.com] to anyone who shorted at $25/share- 2x in 3 years isn't bad.
Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (Score:2, Interesting)
Is he lying or not? If the original unix comments are in there verbatim, it sounds unlikely that it was completely original.
I'm not saying it should be copyrightable or affect the suit at all, but it certainly bears on Linus' credibility, if he copy/pasted a header file then claimed it was a product of his genious.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But comments are written in human language, and it's unlikely that two people phrase a complex thought th same way. If you're grading programming assignments in university, and see the exact same comments in two student's works - it pretty much tips you off to cheating.
I don't know what Linus actually said - whether he copied from Minix, the wiki article says "Linus Torvalds, the creator and trademark holder of Linux, has d
Re: (Score:2)
Copying the standard "this header file defines the standard error codes used by the blah blah blah..." comment is not the same as copying code that implements those things.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, nice analogy. Three points:
Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see anything here that implies Linus Torvald's credibility has been in the least bit impugned, and I think more people need to stand up and say that. This is exactly how rumors get started that can seriously impact an honest person's credibility, and all because of a poorly worded Slashdot description (that itself doesn't even question Linus' credibility).
Re: (Score:2)
The comments aren't exactly works of art, are they? In fact its pretty much a simple expansion of the define's abbreviated name. There isn't really a human creative element here. If you pick up any UNIX standard, or the (quite free)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, actually things might be a bit different than you think.
Copyright is not on an idea, but on the expression of an idea. Things that have to be written the way they are written and cannot be written any other way cannot be copyrighted. If I ask you to write a program that performs task X, everything in your code that you had to write that way because X cannot be achieved in a different way cannot be copyrighted. Everything that you could have written differen
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
#define ENOSTR 60
Also, how would you describe ENOSTR? The IBM argument (which is valid) is that you would most likely describe it exactly that way. Also remember that Linus stated that some of the file was copied, but some was written. Even if the comments match, if the numbers are different then it is highly unlikely that it was a pure copy, as it would be far better not to change the numbers. (For example, if you redifined SIGKILL
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: (Score:2)
How to Copy and Paste in Linux: (Score:2)
Vi tip of the day: yy p
or 20yy p
Vi FTW!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Alphabetic order... (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly what most people would do in building such a list of #defines...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone stop me...Can't help myself... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Someone stop me...Can't help myself... (Score:5, Funny)
What really is happening:
copyrighted code! (Score:5, Funny)
If (x){
Now that you have seen my copyrighted code, anyone who uses the above code in their programs must pay me a nickel!!!
Hold on, I just got a whisper from my patent lawyer, apparently some firm has trademarked the bracket ({) and my copyright is invalid. Carry on.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn font (Score:3, Funny)
The Wheel of Karma (Score:2)
BIG IF! (Score:2)
Bad for SCO ok for MS (Score:3, Insightful)
While this maybe bad for SCO, those paying the the dance have more than got their money's worth.
They got some really big FUD going, plus the value of major distraction slowing down anyone following the play by play.
Clearly the long term play of MS is to get part or all of there free OS to be illegal. Illegal because they are TOOLS for ripping off copyright(s), or because they don't support legally mandated DRM, or because they they allow DRM to be by-passed, etc, etc., etc.
The only way around this is if more and more people use it and if the big box companies like Dell and Gateway ship boxes with Linux, etc.
Re:Bad for SCO ok for MS (Score:4, Insightful)
It's already known McBride tried to, um persuade Novell to join this little legal foray and they told SCO to get lost. It's already known SCO was told this is not a can of worms you want to open, again IIRC by Mr. Love of Novell. There is at least one of their own employees that have said SCO KNOWINGLY contributed code to Linux and the list goes on. So either McBride is a complete boob to ignore some really sound advise or he had other motivations.
So yeah, I know it's a bit tinfoilish to think Microsoft is simply manipulating another company via proxy but to me, right now it's the only thing that really makes much sense.
Only at first (Score:2)
So if IBM is able to not only rip apart SCO's claims of infringement, but possibly nail SCO with their own infringement charges, then suddenly linux's image improves dramatically. Not only that, but the "common foe"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not convinced that people who are NOT already "in the know" about Linux, and who have "sound bite length attention span" get much from this other than (if you will) some buffer overflow leaving them w/ the sense that Linux is some how legally murky.. (not that I think it is..)
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?
Here are some of the lines: (Score:4, Funny)
Looks like SCO has the upper hand on IBM...
Re: (Score:3)
perl -e 'while(<>){++$l{$_}} map { print "$l{$_}:\t$_" } sort {$l{$a}<=>$l{$b}} keys %l' *.h *.cc | tail
59: #endif
77: private:
95: }
98: public:
105: };
105:
178: }
289: }
346: }
2075:
Waaay OT, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
...isn't it interesting the lines that are most common?
I can tell that you're coding in C++ because of the private/public and the }/}; (that inconsistency has always bothered me: is it a statement or not?).
I ran this* on the Python files of the Django [djangoproject.com] project, and got some interesting results:
Interesting comments:
Funny if it were fiction (Score:4, Funny)
1) Admitting an IBM model-M keyboard as evidence to the case.
2) Calling a monkey to the stand.
3) Yelling "objection" at random moments, even during recess.
4) Showing the court on the doll where IBM touched them.
Can we just throw out the case and stop with the wasting of money already?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"If Chewbacca lives on Endor, IBM must pay us lots of money!"
Behold the Power of the GPL ! (Score:2)
{gawd, I am such a geek
Premier case for a "Loser Pays" court system (Score:2, Insightful)
I would assume that this may conflict heavily with the current "Lawyers Always Win" effect we have now though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Loser pays" is a horrible system. Small companies and individuals would never sue big corporations for fear of losing (even if their suit was valid) unless the case was a slam dunk. Furthermore, big corporations could sue whomever they want, and the defendants would settle really fast, for fear of going to court and losing and having to pay the corporation's immense, million-p
Holly crap! (Score:4, Insightful)
Pheew! Geez whiz, so as my blood pressure normalizes I just wanted to ask
I mean this is actually false information, they are knowingly lying to everyone with each breath they take.
Just read this:
However, there is a group of software developers in the United States, and other parts of the world, that do not believe in the approach to copyright protection mandated by Congress.
The software license adopted by the GPL is called "copy left " by its authors. This is because the GPL has the effect of requiring free and open access to Linux (and other) software code and prohibits any proprietary use thereof.
This stance against intellectual property laws has been adopted by several companies in the software industry, most notably Red Hat. Red Hat's position is that current U.S. intellectual property law "impedes innovation in software development" and that "software patents are inconsistent with open source/free software." Red Hat has aggressively lobbied Congress to eliminate software patents and copyrights. (see http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html [redhat.com] ).
I mean can't Red Hat for example sue them for libel? SCO is constantly insisting that GPL is anti-copyright, while GPL is only possible because of copyright law. They are misstating what GPL is about too by insisting that GPL does not allow any proprietary use (GPL requires that a distributor of GPLed code, follows GPL procedures, this is not about use.)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and the snippet you've cut isn't actually that bad, in that the only actual lie I can see
Only 326 Lines (Score:2)
Msft and scox have already won (Score:4, Insightful)
Want to gloat about scox's share price being down, about scox not doing well financially? Fine, but remember this: scox's market cap is about twice as high now, as it was before the scam. And scox was as good as dead before the scam. Look at the financials, scox would have dead two years ago if not for this scam. Furthermore, darl and kevin mcbride are making out like bandits - each has made about two million since the scam started - not bad for small time Utah scammers. And remember, scox was a canopy company - not a real company. Canopy plays shell games with dozens of make-believe companies.
Msft financed the scam lawsuit, and msft got a great ROI out of the deal. The scam cost msft about as much as the cost to produce one TV commercial, and msft got a ton of grade-A FUD. The scox scam is nothing but about 1% of msft's continuing FUD campaign against Linux. Msft wants potential Linux users to know that Linux is a legal mine field. Msft also wants potential linux comtributers to know that they are risking a msft sponsered bogo-suit. Remember: just because the lawsuit is bogus doesn't mean the lawsuit won't cost over $50M in legal fees - and who wants that? Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to just not contribute to linux?
Re:Msft and scox have already won (Score:4, Informative)
I especially like this quote... (Score:4, Funny)
"THE COURT: Where does this illustration come from in 46? This cup with all this money?
MR. MARRIOTT: Someone on our team made that up, Your Honor."
The fact that this has been in court for this long (Score:2)
SCO should have to pay a lot more than court costs.
Re:Just 1 function..... (Score:4, Interesting)
RTFA. They are talking about function prototypes, not functions. Big difference. Without actually seeing what the beef is, SCO's claims could be as ridiculous as "int foo (void);"
> Just the fact that SCO has not been lying is vindication enough for me.
Where does it say SCO has not been lying? RBC, Microsoft, SCO and Baystar capital* have been in on this pump-n-dump since day one. As far as I'm concerned, they are all crooks and should be brought to court and tried as such. It's no different than Enron and the other MegaCorp swindlers.
[*] http://news.com.com/Fact+and+fiction+in+the+Micro
http://www.newsforge.com/comments.pl?cid=87796&si
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory "300" quote... (Score:5, Funny)
Because this... is... SLASHDOT!
Search results (Score:5, Insightful)
["It doesn't matter if it is only"] returned 45 results.
Google
["Even a simple one"] returns 15400
Google
["is vindication enough for me"] returns 6 results.
I accuse you sir of copyright violation! Even if those are only fragments of your text. It doesn't matter if it is only a few lines, or one, even a simple one is vindication enough for me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
From TFA: "The GPL, of course, grants IBM legal permission to copy, distribute and modify the software. Finally, SCO was a Linux company that distributed this code for years and encouraged the world and its dog to copy, modify, distribute, sublicense, whatever, this code, so they are estopped from suing IBM for doing what the GPL license SCO distributed under said IBM could freely do."
Re: (Score:2)
2) What is there is not one contiguous block of code
3) The lines that SCO do claim are theirs are not copyrightable
4) SCO has released these files under the GPL anyway
5) SCO hasn't proved it does own the lines in question
6) The code is question is less than 0.1% of Linux
7) Owning these lines of code does not mean they own any of the rest of Linux
8) Bankruptcy
Re: (Score:2)
8) SCO agreed to IBMs use of these lines of code in Linux
Re: (Score:2)
Which, when you think about it, won't actually stop them. All bankruptcy will do is clear the slate of debts, meaning their lawyers will not get paid much if anything, and will probably quit. If SCO survives bankruptcy, the tricks will be to a) find a new source of capital and b) find lawyers stupid enough to take on the case.
Re: (Score:2)
9) IBM and Novell win counterclaims and the only fight left is how those two companies will divvy up SCO's carcass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Other points are JFS and RCU both of which are wholly owned by IBM.
Under SCO's theory if a piece of code is used on a unix system, that becomes the copyrighted property of SCO.
So if you wrote a filesystem (JFS, by IBM) and used it on a Unix system you would no longer own that filesystem.
And people call the GPL viral.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
FTA:
"Worse, SCO claims control over code copyrighted by IBM, such as JFS, and others. SCO's own experts said SCO has no copyright infringement claim over those."
"Now, on the IBM motion and SCO cross motion regarding IBM's copyright claims, the GPL matters, in contrast to SCO's alleged 326 lines of infrin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Er, no. Its saying that there are 326 lines of code that, on an extremely untenable interpretation of the law, might be infringed by IBM but, if that extremely untenable interpretation is controlling, then there 700,000 lines of code of IBM's that SCO has infringed. Neither of those results is good for SCO.
Re: (Score:2)