USENIX Panel On SCO Lawsuit Now Available

porkrind writes "No Starch Press and The USENIX Association co-sponsored a discussion on the SCO vs. IBM case at the USENIX Annual Technical Conference. Now you can listen as Chris DiBona, Don Marti, Jon "maddog" Hall, and others explain the nuances of the case. Click here for the MP3."

BitTorrent mirror of MP3 (~8mb)

[mcgroarty]

Should this thing get all slashdotted to hell, I've got a BitTorrent mirror of the MP3 available here [hereliemonsters.org].

MP3 mirror

[Laven]

ftp://videl.ics.hawaii.edu/temp/usenix-slashdot/us enix.mp3 [hawaii.edu]
Mirror of MP3 just in case of Slashdotting.

Oooh the big guns

[ObviousGuy]

Chris DiBona, Don Marti, Jon "maddog" Hall

How about anyone who might have something important to say about the topic?

What about the Samuel Palmisano or Steve Ballmer or Steve Jobs or Linus Torvalds?

It's no surprise that a group of anti-SCO zealots come out with an anti-SCO position.

I have

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, not OG, just another AC.

But yes, I've read all available documents and exhibits except for the NDA code specifically under scrutiny.

From what I can tell SCO has quite a case if the NDA code can be proven to be illegally added to Linux. If not, then the whole case falls apart.

Whoa. I just summarized that last 3 weeks of Slashdot in two sentences.

Re:I have

[Gaetano]

80 lines of code makes quite a case? The NDA is to see 80 lines of code.

Here [linuxjournal.com] is an essay from a person that signed the NDA. Here is a bit you may find interesting:

Here is what I think I can say about the code I saw. The code is fairly trivial--the kind of stuff I wrote in school. The similar portions of the code were some 80 lines or so. Looking around the Net, I found close variants of the code, with the same comments and variable names, in sources other than Linux distributions. The code is not in a central part of the Linux kernel. The code does not appear to have been contributed to Linux by SCO or Caldera. The code exists in current versions of the Linux kernel.

Doesn't sound like much of a case to me. Perhaps you mean if hundreds of thousands of lines of code, that would make it quite a case.

Re:I have

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are the points as you have misunderstood them.

1) The code exists in the kernel (regardless of whether it is in the "central part" or it or not).

2) The code was put there by someone other than the copyright holder i.e. not SCO and not Caldera. IOW, this code is in there contrary to the wishes of the copyright owner.

3) The code continues to exist, violating SCO's copyrights.

Now, maybe the code just happened to match up byte for byte with SCO's code and this is all a big misunderstanding. Or, someon

Re:I have

[Gaetano]

What I seem to misunderstand is that you or the parent poster (if you are the same AC) think that 80 lines is "quite a case".

Re:I have

[hobit]

The law prohibits verbatim copying of copyrighted materials.

Not always. When working on a program and taking contributions from others the rule of thumb is that if it is less than 1 page don't worry about it too much. Fair use and the like protect you. It is like quoting from a book.

Not saying 80 lines isn't enough for a court to rule infringment but the number of lines does matter.

Re:I have

[ClosedSource]

It's a bit dangerous to compare books and software. Fair use might protect you if you were merely publishing a small section of code as text, but incorporating it into a runnable product is a bit different. It would be more like incorporating 1 min of someone else's movie in your movie. I doubt that fair use would protect you in that case.

Re:I have

[Edward Scissorhands]

Your premiss number (2) is false. The code was put there by the copyright owner. The code in question, according to SCO's own claim, came from IBM's engineers. If you had read the legal filings (which I doubt you have), and in particular Exhibit C Paragraph 2, you would see that EVEN if IBM added code that they then added back to System V "derived works"; e.g., AIX or UnixWare, since the code was written by IBM's engineers, now pay attention, IBM OWNS THE SOURCE CODE EVEN IF IT WAS PLACED INTO SYSTEM V DERIVATIVE WORKS. Why do you think that IBM has been so curt and so blunt in their statements? This lawsuit is a joke, and it's pure FUD. Once the case goes to trial and lawyers get to debate it in front of a judge, I doubt it's going to stay around very long. In fact, I would imagine that IBM's lawyers will file a motion on the first day of proceedings for dismissal on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

Regards,

Edward

Re:I have

[schon]

3) The code continues to exist, violating SCO's copyrights.

Not quite.

The alleged code continues to exist because SCO refuses to tell anyone where it is.

Do some reading about the Doctrine of Laches. Basically, since SCO refuses to tell anyone where the alleged code is, then the alleged code is worthless to them. Since the code is worthless, SCO can't claim injury.

That's why the first order of business in a copyright enforcement process is to tell the infringing party what it is they're doing wrong.

By refusing to tell anyone where the alleged code is, so that it can be removed, they are essentially giving up any copyright claims they might have had.

Re:I have

[shadowbearer]

It all depends on how clueless the judge is.

SB

None of them would speak on the record

[porkrind]

Believe me, I wanted to get someone from IBM, SCO, Novell, or Microsoft, but they were all unavailable for comment, for reasons that should be obvious.

When it comes to lawsuits, the companies that are involved run far, far away from making public comments. So, I did the next best thing and got people who had spoken to everyone involved. You may think it's one-sided, but they offer a good analysis of the case.

Re:Oooh the big guns

[tjawatts]

What have Steve Ballmer and Steve Jobs got to do with this? Ballmer probably knows next to nothing about Unix, no idea about Jobs. Palmisano cant take part in such a discussion, he is part of the legal case, unlike SCO, IBM dont need to make noise. Torvalds can take part but he is not very political, he has already made comments (he is also named in the suit). Anyway, the guys have been involved in unix and the open source for a long time. Nobody claimed it was a balanced panel ;-)

Re:Oooh the big guns

[MrLint]

Well teh pro-sco zealots have already been interviews and published online.

Now quite frankly I dont think Stevie gives a damn as NeXt is based on BSD and as much as SCO wants to wish it away.. the BSD case is 20 years old. As for Ballmer, well if need be he'll buy SCO and bury it. Its not like MS hasnt done it before.

Linus has had his bit and he think SCO are full of crap. So Sam is all yours.. have at it.

Sabotage!

[saden1]

Posting a direct link to an mp3 file on slashdot amounts to nothing more than sabotage and an attempt to weaken our website global leadership position. I'll see you in court!

One of the best comments...

[mcgroarty]

One of the best comments in the stream was that the estimated number of Linux users is about equal to SCO's current market cap.

So, if every Linux user could go out and do something that cost SCO a dollar... :-)

Where are the slides?

[Rick Richardson]

Does anybody know where the slides for this talk are?