Version number, file name, and line number!
Greg Hill
Failure to identify code in this manner results in failure for SC0.
Sorry, Kenny, that's just the way it is.
--crunchie812
Greg Hill
> Darl McBride explained to a group of MIT's naive tech weenies in early
> 2004 how the information in regard to version number, file name, and
> line number was to be handled by SCO and the courts.
>
> Those videos have been made available by Anonymous Insider and are
> easily available on the Web. I think people can find that information
> on Google Videos if they search for sco v ibm.
>
> I think you and your IV pals should do something to debunk those
> videos.
U.S. Copyright law debunks those videos.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
Here's how the Chief Information Officer of Just Sports USA, someone with
actual practical knowledge and competent legal advice, responded to SC0's
attempted licensing scam:
"....
. I am requesting the SCO group to provide my organization substantive
evidence of alleged copyright violations so that we may compare the alleged
violations for the purpose of internal audit to determine if any licensing
needs do indeed exist. I do, however, intend to publicly document the
results of said audit and any communication with the SCO Group regarding
this matter.
Before you waste any more of my time or yours, please detail exact
information such as the offending lines of code and the kernel versions you
contend this code is in. Alternatively if your organization agrees, we can
re-address these issues after your current lawsuits regarding these issues
are finalized.
Sincerely,
Gavin M. Roy
Chief Information Officer
Just Sports USA "
Brent Stone
> IBM will lose in public opinion by the time SCO v IBM is heard (in about
> 2 years?).
Since SCO will no longer be around by then, who do you expect IBM to lose
to?
> Then, you'll lose when the offending code is shown to an unbiased judge
> and jury.
Any idea why the "offending" code has never been produced, even after
three court orders to do so?
Monsieur Bobo
> IBM will lose in public opinion by the time SCO v IBM is heard (in
> about 2 years?).
>
> judge and jury.
Nobody has even heard of SCO or SCO vs IBM except for the Linux community.
Dickon Hood
Not quite true. When SCO first sued IBM, and it got all over the technology
press, my manager at the time asked me about it. I doubt he really
remembers much now, though, but he's certainly heard about them.
FWIW, I told him I wasn't in the least bit worried, as I'd read the filings,
and SCO didn't have a leg to stand on. Here we are, approaching a decade
later, and I'm still right.
--
Dickon Hood
Due to digital rights management, my .sig is temporarily unavailable.
Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. We apologise for the
inconvenience in the meantime.
No virus was found in this outgoing message as I didn't bother looking.
Dickon Hood
>> FWIW, I told him I wasn't in the least bit worried, as I'd read the filings,
>> and SCO didn't have a leg to stand on. Here we are, approaching a decade
>> later, and I'm still right.
> Sorry pal, that wasn't the mood at linux.conf.au in early 2004. Search
> Google for 'Could SCO v IBM happen to you?' and you'll know what I
> mean.
Oh, indeed. It did happen, to a few companies. From what I recall,
Daimler said 'we're not using it any more, sod off', and Autozone recently
settled for an undisclosed, but probably paltry, sum as they actually
happened to be infringing. To my mind that was plain luck on SCO's part,
but there we go.
That SCO failed to demonstrate infringement of anything in Linux, but
possibly a few shared libraries that nobody serious was using anyway --
and still, to this very day, hasn't -- has meant that defence is quite
trivial: 'No, we're not, sod off'.
Dickon Hood
> Well, what I was able to notice from Jeremy Malcolm's presentation
> 'Could SCO v IBM happen to you?' is that there were quite a few Linux
> developers quite worried about the lawsuit. It's good to have good
> video and audio because free software fanatics are real good to twist
> the facts.
That was before SCO failed to show any infringement. Nobody has worried
about it since SCO managed to locate a couple of hundred lines of IIRC
kmalloc(), submitted by SGI but never actually called anywhere, which
admittedly was infringing, and got removed post-haste.
SCO were ordered three times -- count 'em -- to specify, by version, file,
and line, the infringing code. This they failed to do, and it's my
understanding that they're now too late to do so.
> Linus was at linux.conf.au 2004 and other key Linux developers. There
> are cool photos of them. Anonymous Insider was very clever on
> documenting all this stuff.
I feel very pleased for him.
> Therefore I think the anti-SCO campaign through Groklaw and other
> media helped change the mood of developers and companies.
No. SCO didn't needs Groklaw's help to do that. When you accuse people
of being liars and thieves, then refuse to back up your assertion with any
evidence, it tends to make said people unhappy with you. This is a lesson
SCO learned the hard way.
Nick Andrew
>On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:27:04 -0700, krsaborio wrote:
>> IBM will lose in public opinion by the time SCO v IBM is heard (in about
>> 2 years?).
>Since SCO will no longer be around by then, who do you expect IBM to lose
>to?
Ralphie, obviously.
>> Then, you'll lose when the offending code is shown to an unbiased judge
>> and jury.
>Any idea why the "offending" code has never been produced, even after
>three court orders to do so?
Because it doesn't exist. SCO tried to put one over that IBM's own JFS code
infringes, because it was code that could be seen in both Unix and Linux,
however SCO didn't notice that IBM actually took their OS/2 port of JFS
and ported _that_ to Linux.
And they entered as evidence some 300 lines of Unix code which may be
either unprotectable or not even owned by SCO. Even if this code is in
Linux as a direct byte for byte copy, the quantity is so trivial that it
couldn't be the basis of any damages. And once identified in public, the
code would be promptly removed from Linux, probably within 24 hours.
If there's any infringing code, it certainly hasn't been provided by SCO
as evidence in the IBM case.
Nobody wants SCO's code in Linux, except SCO. The rest of the world wants
to know with specificity what code is alleged stolen, and once identified
and its provenance ascertained, it will be removed from Linux forthwith.
We've been waiting 7 years for this information.
Nick.
b...@entropy.tmok.com
> We've been waiting 7 years for this information.
I'll be in the nursing home and asking the pretty nurse who
won't know what the hell I'm talking about "hey, did SCO ever present the
evidence that they owned a single line of Unix?"
And I will only get a smile and a pat on the head and a "Dear, have you
taken your meds today?"
--
BMO
cs
> FWIW, I told him I wasn't in the least bit worried, as I'd read the filings,
> and SCO didn't have a leg to stand on. Here we are, approaching a decade
> later, and I'm still right.
My boss at the time asked me exactly the same thing, and being one who
has actually seen and worked with the actual Unix code, knowing what i
do about the BSD settlement, I could say that after reading the filings,
it was all bullshit, from start, and that that would still be the case
at the end, just as we can see now.
Krsaboro just come comes across as an uninformed troll. (well, perhaps
not entirely uninformed, but with a hellbent ability to twist anything
to mean the very opposite, at least in his alternative reality.)
// Chris.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---