Linux.com

Is this really from Linus? Regardless, it is the most hilarious response, to dimwit Darl's blathering, that I have seen yet.

Oh, if anyone cares, I am working on a Perl script that will take letters from Darl and automatically generate Iraqi Information Ministry type reponses. I feel that the responses should be automated as far too many people are wasting too much of their valuable time responding to Darl's incesant blatherings.

#

Yes, it is definitely direct from Linus his own self.

#

It's definitely his writing style. Linus never coated his words in sugar.

#

In all of these things that SCO has done, and said, it has always tried to state that it can not give us the source, weather its due to the fact that is to be used as evidence in court, or that we couldn't remove it all.

I belive in the first response, the one that it is evidence, is not a decent argument, since I am sure, that not all of the infringing code is from IBM, as they have stated. Even if they think they might have more cases that would envolve it, I think that a judge would like to see that SCO made an attempt to deal with this out side of court, other wise, they did not try to deal with the problem. I think a judge might see that action, as a company just wasting time, when it could have fixed this without envolving the courts time.

Then, their later statment, say that it would not be possible for the community to replace all the code. Well, I would like to see the source that is infringing in order to come to that conclusion myself.

Also, with the little source we have seen, it looks as though, alot of it was just stuff that was already released in a different license that allows its use.

I think SCO should just put up the evidence, and let the public now what they feel has been done. Untill SCO shows there hand, they are going to look at them as a really bad poker player. I don't know what they have, if its a dead hand, 5 high, they are in some trouble, but even if its a Royal Flush, which I doubt myself, I find they have not been playing by the rules, and no one knows if they cheated and either planted the cards for the other players, or stole the others cards.

When you play 5 card draw, and you see a man with 7 cards in his hand, I think he is cheating.

#

In the last few days, Bruce Perens, Eric S Raymond, and Linus Torvalds have all responded to the appallingly laughable letter by Darl Mcbride in way that certainly should put people on notice...

The Open Source community is ably represented here by three men noted for plain speaking and, at times, left of centre ideas and notions. Fine. When necessary, they have all now shown, by these outstandingly coherent, gracious, and intelligent responses, how mature the Open Source community truly can be at need.

Darl must be seriously worried now - MAJOR misjudgment mate - we may be idealistic (yes, as if thats a bad thing in itself...), but we are also a formidable combination of creativity, intelligence, passion and professionalism.

You cant beat that with your smoke and mirrors Darl.

#

Left of centre ideas and notions? ERIC S. RAYMOND?! Sweet Jesus, if he's left of centre, I don't even dare dream what a right-wing kook is like.

#

He (the poster) did qualify it with "at times." I suppose for Mr. Raymond, that would be "once a decade or so."

#

lol 'HE' in this case, is a SHE:)

left of center also can be used to refer to 'unusual, out of the ordinary', and is not just politically based, but used to refer to creativity.

#

Linus seems to be a man of few news public words. Everytime I see his comments they always seem cool and down to earth. None of this ranting and raving some people do. Always relaxed and to the point.

I thank Linus for his open letter and the comments he makes. I am glad to say that I am part of a community with Linus and other honest and sensible people.

Thanks Linus.

#

This is the fruit of all that practice he gets dousing (and setting off) flame wars on the Linux kernel mailing list.

Torvalds to McBride: I've dealt with expert flamers, people who actually knew most of what they were talking about.

Torvalds to Raymond, Perens: Like this, guys.

#

I have to agree this. In the IT industry you get so used to seeing long-winded papers, etc, that when someone comes out and says what they mean in a straightforward manner, it's like a breath of fresh air. We need more people like Linus in all areas of the computer industry. And while we're at it, in all government agencies, businesses, etc...

#

What a stroke of luck that the Chief Architect turned out to have this knack for the right thing to say at the right time, especially under stressful circumstances.

#

http://sco.com/scosource/

LOL!

#

But nobody hasd been able to buy a licence. They dont know how to sell them. This is so laughable it isnt even funny. Did you read the part about taking a wait and see attitude and to follow the advise of your legal counsel.
Man this is nothing but a good ole stock pumping move at the expence of the GNU/Linux operating system.
I hope McBride and Scum rot in jail for defrauding stock holders.

                            Ron Watts

#

The site says:

  "The license is a perpetual, right to use license applies to the system (client, server or embedded device) running Linux in binary form."

Now: it is _really_ perpetual, or perpetual until SCO runs out of money again???<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

well seeing as they "revoked" IBM perpetual licence, it would seem that they don't know what the word means.

#

When this is all over, can we sue them for false advertising???

#

They say that can't show the source code because they say it will infinge on their trade-secrets, blah blah blah. But if it's already in the kernal, isn't it already out there. Come on, you don't have to show SCO's source, just say what lines of code they have in question.

Not only that, we know a majority of the code they are talking about. IBM and SGI's contribution. We know what they contributed. So most of that we know to be what SCO is talking about.

#

Very good letter from Linux, short and to the point. Please accept my grattitude for your submission Linus.

#

There is a way to prove what Darl McBride says is false. It involves a proof by contradiction used in mathematics: a) suppose a statement is false, b) show that this supposition leads logically to a contradiction, c) since what we assumed is false, the original statement is therefore true.

SCO does not want to indicate the source code in dispute. So we only have the kernel's code with which to begin. We start with the following statement: There is not code on the Linux kernel to which SCO can lay any claim.

A) Suppose the statement is false. Suppose there is code to which SCO can lay any claim.
B) Here is where the foot work starts. ALL present day source code from the kernel must be traced back to its original author, just like the slides at the meeting were traced back. Note: some authors, though proud of their work, may want to be identified only by their nicknames.
C) Having proved that all code comes from GPL'ed sources, our assumption that the statement is false does not hold, thus the initial statement is true.

Considering the number of lines of code in the kernel, this could require considerable amount of tedious work and LOTS of supporting documentation. But I belive it will prove once and for all, at least to the open minded people, the falsehoods of McBride's utterances.

My small contribution.
Thank you.

#

[Thanks to the earlier anonymous post titled "The funny thing is..."]

1. Fact: All Linux kernel code CAN be viewed NOW by the public.

2. SCO Claim: Some SCO code is in the Linux kernel.

3. Therefore (from 1 & 2): The SCO code that is in the Linux kernel CAN be viewed NOW by the public.

4. SCO Claim: SCO cannot state which Linux kernel modules contain SCO code because it would allow (THEN) the SCO code to be viewed by the public.

5. Implied (necessary for 4): The SCO code that is in the Linux kernel CANNOT be viewed NOW by the public.

Point 1 is a known fact.

Points 3 and 5 are contradictory.

Therefore, either one of SCO's claims (points 2 and 4) is false, or both are false.

#

I do not rise to defend SCO's claims, but merely to point out that its statements are not logically inconsistent.

Suppose SCO's claims are correct, and that the Linux kernel does indeed contain lengthy, verbatim sections of SCO proprietary source code. So long as no one knows precisely which lines of code these are, no one will know how SCO's supposedly proprietary procedures work -- something desirable, from SCO's point of view. Certaily, SCO's direct competitors would gain advantage from this knowledge. Therefore it is consistent with SCO's position that they not make public which parts of Linux code supposedly trespass on their property.

Indeed, it is quite possible that SCO could lose its case against IBM and yet the particular lines of code at issue never be made public. If a judge ruled, for example, that the code is neither GPL'd nor property of SCO, but simply in the public domain, this would imply that SCO's software makes extensive use of code that is in the public domain. Well and good, but it would damage SCO's competitive position then to reveal WHICH lines of public-domain code are in SCO's software. A judge might rule that which lines of code were at stake be kept under seal.

#

let's have a closer look at your key assumptions:

Certaily, SCO's direct competitors would gain advantage from this knowledge.

what market is SCO in? Unix systems, esp. for x86 based systems, probably some others as well. who are their competitors in this market? unix vendors, esp. for x86 based systems, but often enough the decision would be between an x86 system with SCO or some other unix system. that would be Sun (Solaris on either x86 or Sparc), IBM (AIX), SGI, and a few others. Now what have all these Unix vendors in common? you guessed it: they have Unix licenses, thus legal access to SCO's code, thus know already what you think SCO is trying to prevent them from learning.

Well and good, but it would damage SCO's competitive position then to reveal WHICH lines of public-domain code are in SCO's software. A judge might rule that which lines of code were at stake be kept under seal.

first, i would like to see the judge that declares something that's in the public domain a trade secret. Second, you left out the more likely case that it was published under a license like BSD or X, in which case SCO would be guilty of having tried to misappropriate somebody else's code by slapping its own copyright on it.

any more weak excuses for SCO's secrecy?

#

But the code is already public. Anybody can review it, trace its origin, and most importantly understand what it does.
SCO cannot ague honnestly the point that not revealing where the alleged infringing code is located protects the said code.
A gifted hacker can understand code as he reads it just like a gifted musician can "hear" music as he reads it.
The code is public. Therefore, SCO's argument is completely disingenuous. It can only be made by a bunch of overpaid, arrogant, and unethical suits like McBride et al.

#

I think proof by contradiction applies
only when the assumption can only be true
or false. Sinse it is possible to have
*some* (but not all or nothing) infrigment
in the kernel, we cannot use proof by
contradiction. For example, a number can
be a rational number or not. But since it
cannot be part rational and part irrational,
then proof by contradiction can be a valid
argument. I am not a mathimatian, I would
be nice if a mathimatian can approve of what
I posted.

#

The point is that the problem can be reduced to an assumption that can only be true or false (ie there is no infringing code) and so you can use proof by contradiction here

#

no mathematician would do that, or he wouldn't be one. your premise is badly mistaken, since not evem SCO asserts that all of the linux kernel is a copy of their code. their assertion is that some parts of the linux kernel is their IP

#

ok mcbride has taken up too much of our valuable time and web space and bandwidth.

unless mcbride shows us the code, i will continue to have this image of my head of this small, futile, dog yapping endlessly at my feet, too scared to go for a bite of leg.

so put up or shut up

cairo, egypt

#

I think it seems kind of fishy that they won't point to the code they say is stolen, considering that it's out in the open anyway. There's probably something more sinister going on underneath this all. Seeing as how they got $10 million dollars from Microsoft for a "license" they may also have gotten a plan of attack from Microsoft's top notch lawyers. I think they have some sort of card they haven't played yet, and it may very well be a way to invalidate the GPL and cripple open source software irreperably.

I wish this case would get over with, because I'm really getting nervous over it. Seems like Microsoft gets what Microsoft wants.

#

I believe that SCO is completely delusional, first saying one thing, then backing up and denying it.

SCO is desperate. SCO is making mistakes.

I think that SCO wants you to think that it has a plan of attack. I very much doubt it.

All of what SCO has thrown so far has been easily refuted.

The idea of invalidating the GPL will cause world-wide chaos, this is not some small movement that can be stamped out.

#

Darl Checkmate. I think you are play chess with only pawns and a King(pin). You have sold most of you stock before/during these events as to not lose all your investments. You obviously knew this would drive down the stock price (insider info, I think an investigation should be considered).

You have yet to show any code due to Trademark infringements. You are taking ques from Microsoft who said about 2 years ago in front of the world that it could not release its source do to National Security (US ONLY). Then last year turns around and opens it up to China when then tell them that they will not use any OS that they can not see the source code to.

If you have proof, then show it. Otherwise this is a game that you cannot win. Ask Microsoft they change their strategy every couple of months because they have not figured out how to beat Open Source.

I ask IBM never purchase SCO, let them die a horrable death many times over.

#

SCO knows that they have been sloppy with their use of other people's code.

SCO knows that their Unix contains illegal code, and code with the copyright illegally removed. This was demonstrated to be the case with one of the samples that they presented earlier.

Therefore, if SCO identified the code, they would be opening THEMSELVES up to a series of IP lawsuits -- lawsuits that they know they would lose.

#

they don't need to show their code, just to prove that there is portions of linux kernel code that has come from any other (SGI, Solaris, AIX, etc.) Unix-licensed code. They are under no obligation to show SCO UnixWare or any other SCO product.

which is a shame, because then they would be screwed, like you said.

#

Yeah? How do you expect them to do that without showing the code? Without that, you have no proof.

#

The judge and the parties involved are the only ones that might be able to see the code. What he meant to say is "publicly showing code."

#

It does show the court that they don't want the infringement to stop
It could be so that the infringement is been considered as such but that the rulling will be, it has to be taken out since the community wasn't aware of it, in that case SCO would have to make it public

If I can prove the stole good I got were a gift and I couldn't be aware of the fact it was stolen, I will have to return it but most likely not have to pay

To return the code (figuratly speaking) we have to know what it is

#

No. You're not understanding the case. They only have to show that Unix copyrighted (trademarked) code, that was released under "their" given license, is present in Linux.

That means that they can show portions of code that is in AIX, IRIX, or whatever, so long as it's code that was licensed, by them, as "Unix".

So yes, SCO has to show code, and whether it's publicly shown, or only within the trial setting, it does NOT have to be SCO's own code for UnixWare. All that matters is that it's code that is/was licensed under the trademark of "Unix" which they own the trademark on.

The code that came out of the presentation in Europe was code that came *BEFORE* SCO owned the trademark, and was publicly available, therefore not applicable.

Seriously....you gotta understand what the case is about before you comment on it.

#

SCO must reveal the code.

However, the judge will limit the viewing to the parties involved and the court. In other words, no public viewing of code.

#

Linus said : "we find your references to a negotiating table somewhat confusing, since there doesn't seem to be anything to negotiate about"

Well, from SCO's viewpoint there is. Obviously what they would want to discuss is not the removal of "copied" code (a Godsend to them if it exists), but a Linux licensing scheme. Like future distros having the kernel locked up until you get a key from SCO on payment of $400 (or whatever it was).

No doubt this could be negotiated down to say $200 if we behave ourselves, a very nice sum indeed for SCO when multiplied across the world. I have 3 copies running for a start (whoops, now I've told them).

That would be SCO's agenda.

#

But SCO has no case, no right to the code, so there is nothing to negotiate about, so yours was a moot point.

#

Yeah, but the first step to negotiating licence fees is to identify what is being licenced.

#

If they even tried to negotiate anything SCO would release dosens of press releases about it and make it seem like code was actually found and such. So that wouldn't work too well.. unless if they made them sign some sort of agreement (NDA)?

#

"Where's the beef?"

#

Yes Darl do grow up, and spare us the drama.

#

Darl McBride

I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hampster and your father smelt of elderberries.
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

sorry couldn't resist the Monty Python Referances.

#

Darl wants the Linux community to monetize their resources.

These resources include damages and compensation for the effects of SCO's FUD, defamation of character etc etc.

In his letter, Darl is obviously recognising this and wants to negotiate an out-of-court settlement.

#

That SCO us not after licensing money from normal Linux Users, but from Corporate Linux Users, and companies who want to use Linux source code in their product whitout releasing their derived source as demanded by the GPL.

Note that:


  - Microsoft has bought a lisence from SCO to use UNIX SysV source code.


  - SCO claims they own a substansial part of Linux as derived from UNIX SysV. (est. 1 mill. lines of code)

So their customers (Microsoft) may use Linux source code in their products (Windows?) with Legal protection from SCO!

But this just seems too weird to be true, so just forget the whole idea.

#

An interesting idea, but I think the Microsoft purpose is simpler. If the Linux is not free of charge any more (like SCO wants it) it will become a competition "in flesh" to Microsoft products, and not some transparent enemy you can't fight with money. And we all know how Microsoft deals with their commercial competitiors.

#

Unfortunately I fear that the GPL is doomed. I believe the GPL community has been just been given the biggest sucker punch ever. Here is what I think is happening:
1. SCO loses lawsuit.
2. SCO appeals the lawsuit.
3. SCO loses appeal
4. SCO appeals lawsuit all the way to the supreme court.
5. At this point Bill calls Lou over at IBM and has a conversation that goes something like this:

Bill: "Hey Lou, why are you being so dumb?"
Lou: "whaddaya mean?"
Bill: "Well, one the one hand you are risking loosing a billion dollars by continuing to pursue this lawsuit, while
on the other hand if you win this lawsuit all you gain is the right to make less money from software.
Lou: "Bill, this is not about making money. It's about open-standards, freedom, and all that is good and right."
Bill: "Yeah right... I tell you what - Why don't you go into court tomorrow, and tell Sandy that you really did accidently misplace some code, and after thinking things through you believe the GPL really should be invalidated because it wasn't really what congress envsioned with the copyright law, and besides it really does encourage piracy and lawlessness. Lou - if you do this for me we'll, uh I mean SCO will overlook this little incedent and we can both go back to making obscene profits on our software, just like in the good old days. Whattya say Lou?
Lou: Hmmm...Okay Bill - you know - I really don't need all this stress anyways. Especially with my weight problem and all. Hey Bill - we haven't talked in a long time. Whattya say we do lunch next week.
Bill: Sure Lou - I'll look forward to it. Bye.
Lou: Bye.

The End.

#

Or a terrorist. Or a thug.

Big deal! Tell us something we didn't already know.

IBM has thought of what you're saying.

But IBM knows what's really at stake, which is their freedom, and, ultimately, their survival.

No company can be safe as long as the criminals at Microsoft are allowed to continue operating as you suggest.

And if the justice department won't put them in jail, where they belong, then it's up to us to stand up to them, as IBM is doing, and as many others are doing, by ignoring SCO's threats.

#

I hope you are right. After all I'm sure IBM is still pissed
as hell at m$ for that PS/2 incident. And I appologize for
making Lou Gerstner look kind of lame in my post. In fact, Lou is an extremely profesional businessman. Which is something to worry about. He is not going to let the desire for revenge cloud his business decisions. He is going to worry about increasing the value of his stock, and if getting a better (for him) software business model will do the trick, then so be it. And besides, Lou was not at
IBM when m$ totally screwed IBM on the PS/2.

#

Won't they go away?

#

The first complaint against IBM that SCO filed made interesting reading. Not to speak of the factual errors in their claims regarding OpenSource and Linux, one thing is very clear, they ought to fire their lawyers. They have not delivered what they got paid to do. One thing the OpenSource community deserves, is at least a decent and well-researched complaint to fight against.

The good thing is this has brought the Linux phenomena to the FOREFRONT, all of you out there, still paying Protection Monies to Redmond and others, keep your eyes and ears open. We will fight and fight and we will win. Then you will come to us. We will embrace you, and provide you with your next generation of computing power, created out of our blood and sweat.

Coming back to the lawsuit, the first complaint claimed that "Linux is an operating system" and then that "Linus created it". Did Linux in any way create or attempt to create an operating system. The second complaint makes an attempt to correct it using "GNU/Linux" (i can hear Stallman grinning). A search on the web would have revealed the truth, but they chose not to do it. Does this not amount to misleading the court or atleast to using frivulous reasons to file complaints. The more you read it the more it sounds like a marketing piece.

The basic premise of 'copying' code<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I am not a lawyer but common sense and basic knowledge of computer theory will reveal that two programs(in binary form) cannot be considered 'copies(result of the act of copying)' because they exhibit similar behaviour. Two different programmers working towards the same goal can in all probability produce two different binaries that exhibit exactly the same behaviour. Therefore the only thing that can be claimed to be a copy is the source code. To prove that one has been copied from the other, I believce there are two states in time. The copy process assumes that the original was reasonably complete at the time the copy was being made (therefore the original was created before in time). Therefore, during the act of copying it is easy to differentiate between the original and the copy and to identify and prosecute the copier becasue the originbal will be reasonably complete and the copy will be less complete. But after the act is completed, what is the fail proof method of determining which is the copy and which is the original, defenitely not by looking at the final product because then it would not be a copy. Especially when the original is supposed to be a trade secret and there is no third party to support the claim that the original existed at any point in time before the complaint was made. Then probably the only way to find out which is the copy and which is the original is to show that the original existed before any version of the copy. How do you prove the existense of an "orinigal secret code" at any point in time. How do you convice the judge that though Unix of SCO has been in existence before Linux, the copy of code that Linux now contains was used to generate that binary. It just is not possible. There is no way of proving that SCO's code existed before Linux code and therefore there is no way of concretely saying which is a copy and which is the original and therefore there is no basis for this complaint.

#