Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Software Linux

SCO Changes Tune, Again: Linux Now Just a Riff on Unix 573

Posted by michael
from the no-truth-to-it dept.
dr3vil writes "eWeek publishes an interview with SCO's Darl McBride and Chris Sontag about the IBM lawsuit. SCO now claim that Linux is a 'nonliteral implementation' of Unix, and compare their claim to those involving Harry Potter rip-offs and Vanilla Ice versus David Bowie and Queen." And ronaldb64 writes "Yahoo Business has a nice summary of the last couple of months of stock movement of SCO, and the reasons why. It contains quotes from business analysts ('Win or lose, the outcome is at least a couple of years away' - 'In the interim, we know the company is going to burn through its cash balance.'), the lack of interest in SCO licenses, the effect the license purchase of EveryOne Ltd. had, and its continuing battle with Novell. The explanation given by pro- and contra-SCO activists is interesting: the pro-SCO group (in the form of SCO CFO Robert Bench) says it is because SCO has been laying low lately, the contra-SCO group (in the form of Eben Moglen) says it is because investors are beginning to understand how weak SCO's case is."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Changes Tune, Again: Linux Now Just a Riff on Unix

Comments Filter:
  • What gets me... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by andy55 (743992) * on Friday April 02, 2004 @07:57PM (#8751979) Homepage

    "In the interim, we know the company is going to burn through its cash balance.",

    The saddest part is that this money goes to lawyers and only lawyers, who'll just opt for the luxury version of their next car or shop for the more expensive waterfont summer property. Think if that money went anywhere else--charities, disaster funds, education, investment, open source funding--you name it. Dozens of /.ers have said it before and it's worth saying again: the only people that win are the lawyers and the senior execs (who suck up senior exec-caliber salaries while they ride their company into the ground). It kills me that types like this go home at the end of the day to their families convinced that they're adding to the GDP.

    • Might it be that you are talking 'bout the benefits of capitalism? Or is it just me being in cynical karma-burning mode?
      • Re:What gets me... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by daviddennis (10926) <david@amazing.com> on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:11PM (#8752099) Homepage
        The benefits of capitalism happen to include the mass availability of computers and high-speed networking, so I wouldn't complain too much about it.

        The only alternative to capitalism is rationing, otherwise known as the government deciding what products you should have, and handing them over.

        I've been fascinated by the idea of an economy without money, but even in Communist Russia, there was always money - you just couldn't buy anything with it.

        Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best system we've been able to come up with.

        D
        • Re:What gets me... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Dr. GeneMachine (720233) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:23PM (#8752197)
          Well, preach to the converted... But I refuse to view capitalism as something more than the best we've been able to come up with. A fact which should keep us thinking about ways to improving it. Keep an open mind - we are by no means at the end of our imagination and possibilities regarding the organization of economy and society.
          • Re:What gets me... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:39PM (#8752309) Homepage Journal
            I'm with you. Grandparent says "the only alternative to capitalism is rationing" but of course this isn't true. There have been all kinds of economic systems throughout history, of which capitalism and socialism are only two examples, and recent ones at that. (Feudalism, mercantilism, fascism, the list goes on.) Capitalism is better than all the others, so far, but it's a long way from perfect, and there is no justification for an ideological attachment to capitalism for capitalism's sake -- especially if that attachment keeps us from tinkering to make improvements.
            • Re:What gets me... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by jadavis (473492) on Friday April 02, 2004 @10:14PM (#8752804)
              It's my theory that capitalism is young in some ways. Maybe in another 100 years the forces in a market economy will be a little different, improving the actual outcome of capitalism.

              Many of the problems with capitalism seem to be realted to individuals lacking information or acting in line with a self-fulfilling prophecy.

              Take the example of those executives. Why do investors turn their money over to individuals who have nothing to lose by running the company into the ground? I certainly don't.

              Why do companies structure themselves like a monarchy or oligarchy? It doesn't work for nations, yet big companies routinely take the revenue-generating power away from the individual workers or team managers, and make corporation-wide decrees (e.g. "the whole company will run windows"). If the execs would just cede a little of the decision making to the smaller units, the smaller units could pick up the small-scale revenue and efficiencies that can't be seen from the boardroom. I'm waiting for the day big business is run more like a bunch of small companies working together. That's a place I might invest.

              It's only the last 100 years that banking and investing have been even close to the scale of today. We have another 100 years to go before people realize that it's a losing proposition to buy into litigious companies that are bound to fall apart ("I'll get out before it blows up...", sure, uh huh). People will stop playing the stock market as though they were just letting a bet ride in Las Vegas. People will start looking at the real incentives they create for the corporate execs (in the case of Darl McBride, the incentives are not apparently long-term).

              Maybe in the longer term the banking system will facilitate larger investments more quickly, which will mitigate the monopolistic powers (the monopolists rely on have more money than any competitor can access). A monopolist couldn't employ "predatory pricing" unless the monopolist has way more money. A bank would be willing to loan the money in order to, in the long term, get it's foot into the lucrative (and previously monopolized) market. With a powerful enough banking system, competition would take hold and benefit the consumer.

              At least I hope these things can start to happen in 100 years. I have my doubts that anyone is going to invent anything better than capitalism. After all, you speak of the different economic systems but they are really just different points along the spectrum of government control. Capitalism is close to 0 government control of the economy, and the other systems' governments control different aspects of the economy different amounts. Feudalism is really just about land ownership and tennants (in a time when you couldn't pick up and move quite so easily to find a better lord). So, are you planning to just pick different points on the scale until you find a "sweet spot"? Or are you hoping for new scale to appear?

              • Re:What gets me... (Score:5, Interesting)

                by w42w42 (538630) on Friday April 02, 2004 @11:28PM (#8753209)
                Take the example of those executives. Why do investors turn their money over to individuals who have nothing to lose by running the company into the ground? I certainly don't.

                This is a big one. I think a tendency is to want to regulate executive contracts and pay, but I believe there's another solution. Instead of attacking this symptom directly with hard to enforce laws, attack it at the source.

                I'm talking about the role of financial analysts. It's a bit suspicious to me when 30 out of 30 analysts all decide to make the same call on a company in the same day, when there was no activity in the prior three months. I also think that analysts should somehow demonstrate a knowledge of the industry they're following.

                I remember awhile back when Merrill finally canned Henry Blodget, the guy who made the self fullfilling call on Amazon. The guy was still recommending buys on stocks that were tanking. Here's an article [upenn.edu] that goes into a bit more detail - the short version being that these jokers recommend 100 buys for every sell.

                Rant aside, these CEOs are encouraged into doing short term, risky, and often times very ill-thought out things in the name of their stock price. If analysts would cry foul when they're supposed to, I think you would finally start to see the market correct itself in what might otherwise be ethical or behavorial issues.

                Re SCO, I think a group of analysts that a) knew what they were doing, and b) felt they were there to work for the stock buyer (you and me), would have saved the day already. Darl would have seen his stock hitting the floor, been reading the bad press, and stopped his action. I think Enron is another obvious example, with the same conclusion.

                Rant over, sorry.

                • Re:What gets me... (Score:5, Interesting)

                  by pedro (1613) on Saturday April 03, 2004 @12:57AM (#8753682)
                  Warren Buffet had a good idea to challenge those who game the stock market (almost everybody :)
                  Simply tax gains and prorate losses based on the holding time of a stock.
                  In other words, if you make a killing on some sort of quick runup in a security, you take a 99% tax hit if it's the same day, 95% after 7 days, 90% for a 30 day window, on a sliding time scale.
                  Similarly, if you buy in on a 'hot tip' at 9am, and lose your shirt by afternoon, you can only deduct 1% of your losses. Further out, you can deduct progressively more.
                  The whole idea is to discourage trading stocks on temporary price, and encourage trading on long term value and real earnings.
                  Sounds like something worth trying, if you ask me.
          • Re:What gets me... (Score:3, Insightful)

            by RLiegh (247921)

            Keep an open mind - we are by no means at the end of our imagination and possibilities regarding the organization of economy and society.

            I'm going to talk completely out of my ass here, I hope you'll bear with me. But this relates to what keeps my interest in following the Free Software movement.

            To me, the most fascinating thing about Open Source is simply this: it provides an example of motivated co operation that does not directly involve the transfer of currency; but yet, it's very self-interest direc

            • Re:What gets me... (Score:4, Informative)

              by sjames (1099) on Saturday April 03, 2004 @11:16AM (#8755609) Homepage

              I've given a fair amount of thought to economic systems. The first step is to admit that capitalism is flawed. It is not the end all and be all system that gives us exactly what we want. It does tend to work better than the other systems tried so far, but it is a poor substitute for what we as a society seem to really want. (What sicko is really happy that people are unemployed as opposed to accepting it as an unavoidable problem in capitalism)?

              At the same time, the various other isms seem to fall apart rather quickly in most cases. They certainly do not seem to work.

              Socialism sort of solves the unemployment problem, but produces a situation where the workers almost wish they WERE unemployed. Productivity tends to become nearly non-existant. Nobody tends to get what they want, only the bare necessities are met (just)

              Most of the other isms are little more than a scheme to allow a small class to live in luxury while the masses struggle for subsistance.

              Capitalism suffers the perverse problem of like attracting like. It's expensive to be poor, but the more money you have, the easier it is to make more. If you have $10,000 to deposit, you get free checking with interest. If you have no money to deposit, you get to pay 5% of your (tiny) income to a check casher and pay for money orders. Poor people lose deposits and flush rent down the drain. Wealthier people build equity. It's cheaper to own a home than to rent, but you can't own a home if you don't have a down payment.

              While socialism holds a gun to your head (perhaps literally), capitalism is no less coercive. Starvation and homelessness is a powerful motivator. That is a coercian so pervasive that it goes unnoticed (until you become unemployed).

              Clearly, in capitalism, the path to freedom is business ownership. However, that requires money and a skillset that only some people have. Society needs people with that skillset, but also needs doctors, engineers, carpenters, etc.

              I don't have a fully developed alternative to capitalism that works, but I do have a few ideas.

              One direction is pervasive automation. Not just automated production lines and welding robots, but robots that make and repair robots. The cost of anything in a healthy capitalist market is driven towards the marginal cost of production. If sufficient automation is in place, it is entirely concievable (though not yet realizable) that the entire chain of production could be automated. That includes gathering raw materials, energy production, transportation, and maintainance of all of the machines. At that point, the real marginal cost is zero. The only obstacle is that someone will own those machines and won't allow them to run for free even though they could. The problem is that starting from a capitalist system, we will never reach the automated ideal. During the transition, most people would end up unemployed, and the cost of things will never quite reach zero.

              One possability is a hybrid system. For that, we start with the idea that food, clothing, shelter, medical care, transportation, communication and education are rights. Recieving those from the state is not a form of societal charity, it is simply the recognition of those rights.

              That is not as unreasonable as a capitalist might think at first glance. After all, simply being born obligates an individual to obey the law and potentially to serve in the millitary, and all but obligates the person to participate in the economy, so it is only reasonable that society in turn has an obligation to the individual.

              So far, it sounds like socialism. The capitalist part is that while those basics are rights other posessions must be paid for just like now in the U.S.

              I maintain that such a system will actually encourage capitalism. MOST people actually can't stand to just do nothing and live off of the state if given a choice. Sure, a lot of people might lay around the house for a while given the chance, but eventually, boredom will drive them to hobbies, and ho

              • Re:What gets me... (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Micah (278)
                Excellent post! I think we need to start running after those sort of ideas, and I'm a conservative!

                My main point of disagreement is that saying food, shelter, etc. are rights even if you don't work. I think that for someone to collect on those rights, they (if able bodied) should do SOMETHING for the government. But there should ALWAYS be some kind of job available, so no one would be truly unemployed.

                Ultimately, the economy and society should exist to bring the maximum quality of life to all of its ci
          • Re:What gets me... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Rick Zeman (15628) on Friday April 02, 2004 @10:44PM (#8752954)
            Well, preach to the converted... But I refuse to view capitalism as something more than the best we've been able to come up with. A fact which should keep us thinking about ways to improving it. Keep an open mind - we are by no means at the end of our imagination and possibilities regarding the organization of economy and society.

            We don't need to improve capitalism--we need to improve the greedy, amoral practitioners thereof.
          • Re:What gets me... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by hey! (33014) on Friday April 02, 2004 @11:40PM (#8753296) Homepage Journal
            Actually, in a way rationing is one of the basic purposes of a market economy.

            For example if gas prices rise high enough then people will eventually reduce their driving or buy more fuel efficient vehicles. It happened in the early 80s.

            I bring this up because sometimes people think a market economy is about getting people everything they could possibly want. It's not. It's about allocating resoruces efficiently. As a result of efficiency, people tend on average to get more of the kinds of things they want.

            With respect to a future system that improves upon capitalism, I suspect that any such system will probably be due to to the fact that efficiency is not the highest possible goal in every case. Effectiveness, defined in different ways, can be a distinct goal. Efficiency supports effectiveness, and inefficiency saps it, but this tendency to go hand in hand does not mean they are the same thing.

            As an example, businesses have efficiency as a primary goal. If they can produce a widget for less money, they make more money. On the other hand an army is more concerned with winning a battle with the greatest possible certainty, efficiency being a secondary consideration.

            Actually wartime rationing is an example of this logic. It would be more efficient just to let prices soar as goods are shifted from the civilian economy to the war effort. The market would produce more civilian goods per dollar. However, in practice only the wealthiest people could buy a commodity like gasoline, or coffee. The lack of shared sacrifice would undermine the morale of the greater part of the population, and in turn reduce the effectiveness of the war effort. Although rationing saps the profit motive and exacerbates shortages, under wartime circumstances these considerations are less important than fairness, which in turn is instrumental to victory.
        • Re:What gets me... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by rokzy (687636) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:35PM (#8752287)
          >even in Communist Russia, there was always money

          that's because Russia wasn't communist.

          this is one of those situations where the answer is in the question: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

          >Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best system we've been able to come up with.

          no it's not, the best system that we've been able to come up with is a mixed economy in which there exists elements from capitalism (private ownership of means of production) and elements of socialism (social security, free education/health care)
          • Re:What gets me... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by jadavis (473492) on Friday April 02, 2004 @10:24PM (#8752838)
            free education/health care

            Education and health care aren't free, it's just a question of who pays the costs, and how.
        • Re:What gets me... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by iminplaya (723125) <iminplaya.gmail@com> on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:35PM (#8752289) Journal
          The "benefits" of capitalism happen to include the mass availability of mostly junk computers and a bunch of other stuff that barely works when it's new. (even if it's only because enough people don't demand better)

          The only alternative to capitalism is rationing...

          That's pretty closed minded. I guess we should rule out just plain old "giving".

          Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best system we've been able to come up with.

          So don't even think of looking for or making up something better? There are still some people on the planet that might take issue with your statement, but I'm sure that capitalism IS the best system for some. Most people that believe that are really saying, "It's good to be king."
        • Re:What gets me... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Ugmo (36922) on Friday April 02, 2004 @09:48PM (#8752679)
          Capitalism Good.
          Litigation Bad.

          Farmers under capitalism grow food to make a buck.
          Computer companies make computers to make a buck.
          Factories make pollution spewing SUV's (but at least they make something) to make a buck.

          Lawyers and CEO's like Daryl just produce briefs and FUD. They delay, lie and prevaricate. They make nothing to humanity's benefit.

          Even a low mileage, polluting SUV can bring kids to school. It has a purpose and is productive. SCO has not produced anything in years now.

          There comes a point when money loses its proper function. In a capitalist society it is a portable ticket carrying your labor or the value of your labor. Instead of trading 500 chickens for your SUV you bring little green pieces of paper that say "I have produced something of value to society. Society says my 500 chickens is worth the same as this SUV."

          Daryl has no chickens to trade. He never made any chickens. He just makes up lies. Someone somewhere is saying his lies are worth 500 chickens. I do not agree. Daryl deserves no chickens. Daryl deserves no SUV. He has produced nothing. Please someone take away his little green pieces of paper and don't give him any new ones until he stops lying and produces something.
          • Re:What gets me... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by bckrispi (725257) on Saturday April 03, 2004 @03:19AM (#8754253)
            SCO has not produced anything in years now.

            One point that we must never forget: SCO has produced something very significant in the past year. Prior to their lawsuit, SCOX was hovering around $1. After they released their lawyers, it shot up to $22. IIRC, all the major insiders dumped their shares prior to the current downturn. The travesty of this story isn't the Trial By Fire that Linux/OSS have had to endure and it isn't the FUD that's been generated and weathered. The sad fact, my friends, is that when all is said and done, Darl and his cronies will still have been made obscenely $rich$ by this little pump && dump scheme. And we must not lose sight of this fact. As long as our present system "rewards" slimy execs for this kind of behavior, we will always have another Darl and another Boies waiting for their turn to cash in. The only happy ending for this story could be if Darl and his sychophants are imprisoned for Securities Fraud. That's the only way justice will be served in this case.

    • ...convinced that they're adding to the GDP.

      Their product IS kinda gross:-)
    • Re:What gets me... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ljavelin (41345) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:12PM (#8752110)
      The saddest part is that this money goes to lawyers and only lawyers

      That doesn't bother me so much - it looks like SCO and Microsoft have determined that it's in their collective best interest to hire this legal team to represent SCO. If it didn't go to the lawyers, it'd just be another lump of cash in Gates' pocket.

      As for the IBM legal team, I hope their lawyers trounce on what looks to be this SCO/Microsoft partnership.

      And given the details that I know, it looks like IBM will succeed in showing that a SCO/Microsoft partnership is in fact a losing partnership.

      The saddest part is some lowly investor who was dupped into buying the stock at more than $1 a share.
    • Re:What gets me... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by niko9 (315647) * on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:19PM (#8752161)
      It kills me that types like this go home at the end of the day to their families convinced that they're adding to the GDP.

      GDP? What ever happened to coming home to your kids and convicing yourself that you are decent human being?

      Fuck the GDP.

      Nick

      --
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:39PM (#8752310)
        What ever happened to coming home to your kids and convicing yourself that you are decent human being?

        It moved to Europe.
      • Re:What gets me... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by justMichael (606509) on Friday April 02, 2004 @09:00PM (#8752433) Homepage
        What ever happened to coming home to your kids and convicing yourself that you are decent human being?
        If you have to convince yourself that you are a good human being, you probably aren't ;)
    • Re:What gets me... (Score:4, Informative)

      by jonbryce (703250) on Saturday April 03, 2004 @02:18AM (#8754009) Homepage
      Even better, from reading the article -

      We don't have to knock out the GPL for us to succeed on the copyright issue. The GPL itself supports, in a lot of ways, our positions. Section 0 of the GPL states that the legit copyright holder has to place a notice assigning the copyright over to the GPL.

      All these contributions of our IP did not have an assignment by SCO saying here, 'We assign these copyrights to the GPL.' The fact that we participated with Linux does not mean that we inadvertently contributed our code to the GPL. You can't contribute inadvertently to Linux. We feel we have a very strong position based on the GPL.

      Sorry, but you don't assign copyrights to the GPL. The GPL is a licence. A licence is not a potental copyright holder. You don't need to assign the copyright to anyone in order to licence your work under the terms of this licence.

      Even better, lets look at section 0 of the GPL to see what it really says.

      0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
      a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
      under the terms of this General Public License.

      Where does it talk about copyright assignment here? Where?
  • by themaddone (180841) on Friday April 02, 2004 @07:59PM (#8751993)
    Q: Why do you think SCO can win?

    McBride: When I look at our case, I think anyone who has a rational mind would come down to the same conclusions I do.

    You mean, just like IBM, and the FOSS movement in general?

    • Re:The Money Shot (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kirill Lokshin (727524) * on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:02PM (#8752021)
      McBride: When I look at our case, I think anyone who has a rational mind would come down to the same conclusions I do.

      Notice how he carefully avoids stating what conclusions he came to...
      • WTF is that insightful??? The questions is :


        Why do you think SCO will *win*???

        Anyone, what exactly isn't clear in Darl's answer??? Should he start with : "I think SCO will win because..." or can we at least accept he's gone past 1st grade???

        • by Xenographic (557057) on Saturday April 03, 2004 @01:00AM (#8753694) Homepage Journal
          Your reading comprehension must not be very keen tonight.

          Of course we all saw that bit. We know that Darl "thinks" he's going to win (I'm not actually convinced of that). The part the granparent noticed is that Darl isn't able to *give any credible theory or evidence or reasoning about how he might win* ...

          Right now, SCO's case is very thinly strung together. They're making totally new arguements (and few if any tried & true ones, and I assure you that they *would* use precident wherever they could), which advocate an inequitable solution (give us all the code IBM made, due to our strained theory of an ancient contract we discovered after sitting on for years).

          The thing about the two contending theories is this: SCO's arguement is thin. If any one piece, each of which is built on top of the other, fails, the whole line of arguement fails, and SCO with it. Whereas, if you read IBM's legal filings (and yes, I have... IANAL, but I've learned a hell of a lot by reading all the tons of legal documents from Groklaw), you will notice that IBM has a layered defense. What I mean by that is that, even if one layer fails, they have not just one, but several other claims, where if *any* of them were to prevail, they would be entirely defended on those grounds.

          I mean, look at some of the defenses: SCO doesn't have the copyrights (SCO will have to prove that they do vs. Novell, and they've shot themselves in the foot by contradicting themselves in their own legal filing! They claimed that Novell was slandering their title to the copyrights SCO purports to own, yet asked for the court to transfer them from Novell to SCO as a remedy, implying that they do NOT own them!), even if SCO does have the copyrights, IBM asserts that the work-product doctrine (hey! WE made this, not SCO!) and the old $echo publication refute SCO's reading of their contract. And even if both of those go SCO's way, SCO gave Linux out under the GPL (and the onus would be on SCO to prove the nonsense about it being "unconstitutional" here).

          So there are three strong layers right there. Pick any two, even if those fail, IBM still has a defense and SCO is up a creek.

          In the mean time, I'm wondering about the SCO publicity. Lately, they have been pretty quiet, probably because of the judge's private conference with IBM & SCO a while back after which SCO mysteriously went quiet and even withdrew from some debate or another. There's also that website that put up a fake press release about them buying a SCO license which SCO asked them to take down. Pity the site was not in English, but SCO's fax to them (which they put up) was, for some reason.

          Maybe I should investigate the contact listed in that fax? I believe it was press.winkler@sco.com / 1 (801) 932-5800 -- it would be nice if I could find out what exactly they're up to these days...
      • Re:The Money Shot (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SpaceLifeForm (228190)
        Implying that if you disagree with McBride (ie. SCO logic), you are irrational.

        But, as McBride himself says: The truth will come out in the courtroom.

        We can only hope.

  • What a joke (Score:5, Interesting)

    by craznar (710808) on Friday April 02, 2004 @07:59PM (#8751996) Homepage
    Does this mean the end for Staroffice, AMD and all but the original movies and books covering the 36 possible Polti plots ?

    Sorry no more responses allowed after this, or else I'll sue you for non-literal illiterate literation.

    • by mcc (14761)
      Sorry no more responses allowed after this, or else I'll sue you for non-literal illiterate literation.

      But then wouldn't you open yourself up to being countersued for illegal levels of litigious alliteration?
  • by Kirill Lokshin (727524) * on Friday April 02, 2004 @07:59PM (#8751998)
    King Feature Syndicates claims Star Wars is "nonliteral implementation" of Flash Gordon, sues Lucasfilm for $10 billion.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:01PM (#8752015)

    "Free words of wisdom baby. Drop that zero, and get with the hero."



    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101615/quotes

  • by MagiGraphX (767644) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:01PM (#8752016)
    Investors are simply beginning to understand how weak SCO's case is.

    Then why is Microsoft still invested... Oh, wait a minute...
  • by ackthpt (218170) * on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:02PM (#8752017) Homepage Journal
    I've been beta-testing Sim-Litigation for a while and it's a pretty gut wrenching thing to go through. The game is like most Sim Games, but in this one every Sim becomes a Sim-Lawyer or someone hiring one, it takes seeming years to play and when the revolution came and the Sim Lawyers all went up agains the wall there was nobody left to fire the bullets.

    I noticed Sim-SCO was one of the first to die off.

  • by KRzBZ (707148) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:03PM (#8752032)
    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1404303,00.as p

    Yet the Arse of Lindon continues to distribute (unsupported) Apache as well as other F/OSS products which adhere to the GPL.

    Need we any other evidence of the duplicity of these scumbags?

    Someone, please shut his piehole. I am sick and tired of listening to the lies and FUD and blastant misrepresentations made by this company and its executives and lawyers (same thing?).
  • by World_Leader (635956) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:04PM (#8752042)


    SCO marketeers must have just relized that their lawsuit is in effect telling the public, and in particular the business public, that Linux is Unix for free. Otherwise, why sue?

    • by Talinom (243100) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:59PM (#8752421) Homepage Journal
      Quoth the article:

      Sontag: We don't have to knock out the GPL for us to succeed on the copyright issue. The GPL itself supports, in a lot of ways, our positions. Section 0 of the GPL states that the legit copyright holder has to place a notice assigning the copyright over to the GPL.

      All these contributions of our IP did not have an assignment by SCO saying here, 'We assign these copyrights to the GPL.' The fact that we participated with Linux does not mean that we inadvertently contributed our code to the GPL. You can't contribute inadvertently to Linux. We feel we have a very strong position based on the GPL.


      End quoth.

      I think that what Sontag is saying here is that they inserted their code without the required notice assigning it to the GPL. This would mean that their code is not covered by the GPL (which is counter to their business model) and is still theirs. (Assuming that any code put there actually is theirs).

      He says that you "can't contribute inadvertently to Linux" and I think they new that. Their code, according to them, is in Linux, being used by Linux, having never been assigned to the GPL. This means that they deliberatly attempted to "poison" Linux. I can here him saying "Too bad for Linux that they didn't look for the copyright notice."
      • by Valar (167606) on Friday April 02, 2004 @10:06PM (#8752769)
        Ok, you might know this already, and you aren't really arguing to the contrary, but I thought I would point out the flaw in SCO's argument here.

        Quoth the GPL:

        2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
        of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
        distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
        above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

        a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
        stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

        b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
        whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
        part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
        parties under the terms of this License.

        End quoth.

        Therefore, by modifying a piece of GPL software (linux), they agreed to distribute the modification under the GPL. If they didn't use the appropriate notification of the change, they are violating the terms of the GPL, which they agreed to by contributing to a GPL program. They aren't released from the terms of the GPL. If you refuse to make a payment on your apartment, does that entitle you (because you broke the contract) to choose any new contract terms you want (rent is now $-10,000 a month, k thx!)? No, obviously. So why does a violation of the terms of the GPL entitle them to exemption from their legal requirements?
      • Sontag lies (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        a) you do not "assign" copyrights to GPL. The author retains copyrights, but the code is licenced through the GPL.

        b) The required notice is the GPL. Everything in the kernel is covered by that statement and licence. SCO distributed the kernel with the GPL.

        Don't trust SCO. Read the GPL yourself.
  • He is right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lazy_arabica (750133) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:05PM (#8752044) Homepage
    Why do you think SCO can win?

    McBride: When I look at our case, I think anyone who has a rational mind would come down to the same conclusions I do.


    He is right : everyone with a rational mind would understand SCO initial claims were so silly that it was worth for Darl McBride to change his strategy.

    -----
  • by demonic-halo (652519) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:05PM (#8752046)
    SCOX definately should be sorted.

    That company no longer has the ability to sustain itself from day to day operations.

    Or Maybe it's better to buy 1 share of SCOX, wipe my ass with it, and mail it back to Darl McBride. It's just too hard to say what gives me more pleasure.
  • SCOX rampage. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Forge (2456)
    This means 4 distinkt lawsuites against the same company (IBM), Each one filed after the 1st was shown to be completly baseless.

    This last one hasn't a ghost of a chance but SCO can always fantasize. :)
  • Umm.... yeah. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by el-spectre (668104) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:07PM (#8752061) Journal
    As I type I am (should be) working on a simple login function. It works pretty much the same as every other one ever written... including a unix login... wonder if I'm next to be sued.
    • Re:Umm.... yeah. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MisanthropicProgram (763655) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:13PM (#8752115)
      You just summed up the state of IP law in the US most beautifully.
      • by Ugmo (36922)
        You just summed up the state of IP law in the US most beautifully.

        To sum it up perfectly he should add, after saying that he is writing a login function that is exactly the same as every other login function ... and I am now patenting the login function and the USPTO has granted me the patent. Now I am hiring a lawyer to sue everyone on the planet. Look I am winning the lawsuits and putting lots of companies out of business...Another visvtory for INNOVATION.
  • It seems to me that SCO is going after companies that are more likely to pay up than go to court to fight them, taking a bit of a path of least resistance. We don't know how many private license deals they did in the first quarter of 2004... they'll have to release the total revenues in a few months, but it's not out yet.

    SCO might be making more deals than we know with companies less likely to fight back because they know they will lose the IBM fight... so they're profiting while they can.

    In other words,
    • by David Hume (200499) on Friday April 02, 2004 @09:00PM (#8752431) Homepage

      It seems to me that SCO is going after companies that are more likely to pay up than go to court to fight them, taking a bit of a path of least resistance. We don't know how many private license deals they did in the first quarter of 2004... they'll have to release the total revenues in a few months, but it's not out yet.

      SCO might be making more deals than we know with companies less likely to fight back because they know they will lose the IBM fight... so they're profiting while they can.


      This is standard operating procedure in intellectual property litigation -- even if you have a good claim. First harvest the low hanging fruit. Build your war chest by first feasting on adversaries who won't put up a fight. Avoid the risk that you may not collect from weak players becaue you attacked a strong adversary too early, and received an adverse precedent (i.e., published) decision that the weaker players can benefit from and couldn't otherwise have obtained.

      On the other hand, it is also the perfect strategy if you have a weak claim. Attack only weak adversaries who can't afford to defend themselves, or for whom the cost of defense would be greater the the cost of capitulation. There are companies who survive and prosper by asserting weak (cough) intellectual property claims and offer to settle for amounts less than their adversaries' cost of litigation. The key is to make sure that the claim is not so baseless that you expose yourself sanctions or a subsequent claim for malicious institution of a civil action.

      Then again, SCO has already violated these rules by attacking IBM far too early in the game. Go figure.

  • by kalidasa (577403) * on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:09PM (#8752087) Journal
    There are different standards for software than there is for a work of fiction - in a work of fiction, if you have the same characters or the same plot, it looks like plagiarism; but software is about applications (in the generic sense of "things you do"), and one can pretty easily see that a certain amount of workalike implementation would be necessary for competition to be possible. IANAL, but if I were at the business end of this lawsuit, I'd ask my lawyer if the whole MS vs. Apple "look and feel" decision didn't set a damning (to SCO's position) precedent in this area.
    • Elcorton on Yahoo's SCOX message board offers a list of strongly relevant precedents. [yahoo.com]

      Elcorton notes that SCO's First Amended Complaint against AutoZone, section 19, asserts, "The Copyrighted Materials include protected expression of code, structure, sequence and/or organization in many categories of UNIX System V functionality ..."

      Elcorton writes, "The phrase 'structure, sequence and/or organization' comes from the opinion of the Third Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in the 1986 case Whelan Associates

  • by Tackhead (54550) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:15PM (#8752130)
    > Darl McBride and Chris Sontag about the IBM lawsuit. SCO now claim that Linux is a 'nonliteral implementation' of Unix, and compare their claim to those involving Harry Potter rip-offs and Vanilla Ice versus David Bowie and Queen.

    Now that lawyers are jumpin'
    Billy Gates' cash in, and my analysts pumpin'
    Insider trades, all the sales I'm makin'
    Cooking short sellers like a pound of bacon
    Burning them - if they're not quick and nimble
    I go crazy when I see the symbol
    of my high stock - S-C-O-X tempo,
    I'm on a roll, it's time to go solo

    (Rollin!) In shareholder dough,
    Press releasin' now, up my stock will go,
    Pamela's on standby, tryin' just to ask "why"?
    (Did you stop?) No! I just drove by,
    Kept on - I'm filin' to the next suit,
    Judge busts me down, so I gotta try a new truth, -

    That truth was dead, yo, so I continued to,
    (IBM) - Lawsuit avenue!
    Darl and Chris, wearing less than bikinis,
    *** VIEWER PROTECTION FAULT - CORE DUMPED ***

  • Okay (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:17PM (#8752144)
    So now Linux is Bad because it's Similar to UNIX.

    Did Darl ever bother to explain under which portions of copyright law, exactly, it is legal or a civil infringement for Linux to be Similar to UNIX?

    Just checking.
  • by phoneyman (706381) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:20PM (#8752167)
    The eWeek article has some interesting quotes by Sontag, indicating that he has no clue what the GPL is, what copyright is, and what a license in general is. Sad really.

    Sontag: We don't have to knock out the GPL for us to succeed on the copyright issue. The GPL itself supports, in a lot of ways, our positions. Section 0 of the GPL states that the legit copyright holder has to place a notice assigning the copyright over to the GPL. All these contributions of our IP did not have an assignment by SCO saying here, 'We assign these copyrights to the GPL.' The fact that we participated with Linux does not mean that we inadvertently contributed our code to the GPL. You can't contribute inadvertently to Linux. We feel we have a very strong position based on the GPL.

    The GPL is a license under which copyrighted material can be used by others, it is not an entity to which copyright can be assigned (transferred). Sontag seems to think that the GPL == the FSF, or something along those lines.

    It is perfectly possible to "inadvertently" license your copyrighted material to someone else under conditions you don't approve of. The solution is to create a new license to distribute your works under to new people, not to pretend you never did it in the first place.

    I also love this part:
    Sontag: We feel very covered under the GPL itself, and second, U.S. and international copyright law does not allow for inadvertent assignments of copyrighted material; the copyright holder must make an explicit assignment, typically in writing, in a contract. If that's the strongest argument that's out there that SCO has a big problem here, that's a molehill as far as we're concerned.

    This crap is right out of Novell's Motion to Dismiss and Notice of Removal. Novell argues that US Copyright law requires very strict wording to assign copyright, and it does. Unfortunately for this gang of thieves, the GPL is not an entity copyright can be assigned to.

    Pierre
  • Follow the money (Score:5, Informative)

    by erick99 (743982) * <homerun@gmail.com> on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:22PM (#8752184)
    I went to Ameritrade and did some research on SCO. At the end of last year they had $64M in cash which is not very much money. They are a very small company (comparatively) in the IT world with not even 100M a year in revenues. They have three insiders that sold stock or excercised stock options to the tune of almost $300M in Feb/Mar of this year. I don't understand what would keep them afloat for more than a year. They have negative earnings-per-share and they have a estimated share price of $5 at the end of this year (currently at $9.50). SCO would be better served by having someone at the helm that had a real interest in technology. McBride is inarticulate, mean-spirited, and an opportunist. I wonder if SCO can stay in business long enough to see their various law suits to a conclusion.

    Happy Trails!

    Erick

    • by Anonymous Coward
      That's stupid.

      The only question you have to ask yourself about SCO's share price is how long Microsoft is going to keep letting them suck on it's teat.
  • by gsfprez (27403) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:24PM (#8752202)
    Linus says clearly [eweek.com]

    "In other words," Torvalds said, "there is no code taint that I'd be afraid of, since no such tainted code exists in the kernel. There is only the issue of SCO's NDA. And, at least back then, Darl was aware of the issue, so this is not a question of misunderstanding. It's a question of Darl knowingly misrepresenting the truth."

    like his code, his words are to the point and clear.

    Fuck Darl, he's a kockbite.

  • by codepunk (167897) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:36PM (#8752299)
    This has more to do with sequence, organization, which is copyright-protectable.

    And most cars have doors, windows and 4 tires. Perhaps all of the auto companies should sue each other for making similiar items.

    If this is the best they can do they have a hard road ahead.
  • by Tsiangkun (746511) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:46PM (#8752356) Homepage
    McBride: ...anyone who has a rational mind would come down to the same conclusions I do.

    Yesterday ??? Over ??? Oh, sorry I thought I was just getting some bad lag.

    --Tsiangkun
  • by Tenzen01 (155389) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:51PM (#8752379)
    Ignore for a moment that SCO is SCO and we all at Slashdot hate them for various reasons.

    Lots of companies big and small engage in lawsuits everyday as part of doing business. Breach of contract, patent infringement, etc. These things can take years to come to some sort of end, with the parties working something out or a judge making a ruling.

    But business should continue to go on. You can't simply put everything on hold due to ONE lawsuit. But that's what SCO is doing. It seems to me that their entire focus has shifted to this ONE lawsuit. And regardless of whether or not you believe in the merits of their case or the ethics of a company whose business model is nothing but lawsuits... they are putting way too much weight into the potential revenue it might generate. And that is quite risky.

    This is ONE lawsuit. By putting all their time and energy into this one lawsuit it has dwarfed everything else about the company and its real products. This to me is a bad business practice, and is the real reason that SCO is losing investors.
  • Non-Literal?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by borgheron (172546) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:57PM (#8752412) Homepage Journal
    There is no such thing in Copyright law which says this. Unless you have a line-by-line copy of a significant amount of code, you're chances at proving infringement are remote, at best. If you'll notice SCO has progressively backed down it's case again and again.

    We've gone from "full blown copying of 1M+ lines" to "no copying, but those are our derived works" to "we claim these header files" to "Linux is a riff on UNIX". Oh, please. :)

    Come on, Darl, you mean to tell me you think that someone can't write something *similar* to something else without infringing?

    What about Free DOS and the myriad of other OSes out there. Hell, according to this logic, Windows would infringe. Why don't you go sue MS? Oh wait, that would be biting the hand that feeds you. :)

    GJC
  • by 74Carlton (129842) on Friday April 02, 2004 @08:59PM (#8752424)
    All this source code I've looked at, there's MUSIC that goes along with it? MUSIC? I missed the MUSIC!!!! No wonder I can't understand it, just looking at the words and not hearing the MUSIC!
  • by Jodka (520060) on Friday April 02, 2004 @09:03PM (#8752443)
    from the article:
    "The stock plunge won't affect star lawyer David Boies' compensation. ... Boies will get 400,000 shares from SCO."

    Is that statement just plain wrong ?

    Shouldn't that read:
    "The stock plunge will affect star lawyer David Boies' compensation. ... Boies will get 400,000 shares from SCO."
  • by Animats (122034) on Friday April 02, 2004 @09:36PM (#8752614) Homepage
    It's up 0.50 today.

    We may be seeing SCO's announced "stock buyback" program in action. Each day, for the last week or so, there's been a big buy in the hour before the close, which tended to stem the day's decline. (Except for Tuesday, when the stock finished about where it started.) Look at the stock volume charts, and notice the late-day peak. Yesterday, there was a really big transaction just before the close, which pushed the stock up to about where it was at the beginning of the week.

    Today, trading volume was way up. Unclear how much of this is the buyback. But until the buyback program was announced, the stock had been sliding down steadily, almost linearly, for weeks.

  • by woboz (577460) on Friday April 02, 2004 @10:33PM (#8752898)
    We're talking about line-by-line code copying. That includes not just the function but the exact, word-for-word lines of code. And the developer comments are exactly, 100 percent the same. The developer comments really get to the DNA of the code. It's one thing to have something look the same, but when the developer comments are exactly the same, that tells you everything you need to know that this is in fact lifted, that it has been copied and pasted from Unix into Linux.-- Darl McBride, 2003-06-16

    A lot of code that you'll be seeing coming on in these copyright cases is not going to be line-by-line code. It will be more along the lines of nonliteral copying, which has more to do with infringement. This has more to do with sequence, organization, which is copyright-protectable. It's interesting when you go down this path that everyone wants to go to the exact lines of code, but most copyright cases
    -- McBride, 2004-4-01
  • Will this change... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by barfarf (544609) on Friday April 02, 2004 @10:33PM (#8752899)
    Forgive me if this is a redundant question, but I'm not wading through 3 pages of comments to see if this has already been asked.

    By constantly changing what they're saying, does this change the strength (or weakness, as it is) of their case at all? I'm just waiting for some judge to look at this and say, "You guys are full of shit and you can't make up your minds. Case closed, you're ordered to be neutered so that you have no chance of ever reproducing ever again".
  • by Angry Pixie (673895) on Friday April 02, 2004 @10:51PM (#8752979) Journal
    When I look at our case, I think anyone who has a rational mind would come down to the same conclusions I do.
    So McBride says that we are all irrational because we do not agree with his side. Traditionally, legal disputes are fought with the admittance that each side is rational - a sort of gentlemen's approach to the fight. Of course, often legal proceedings come down to screaming that the other side is wrong because he's just crazy.

    The article mentions SCO's opinions on the GPL, so it may come off redundant that I mention this here, especially since Slashdot rejected it when I submitted it days ago:

    SCO's website lists five reasons [sco.com] for choosing SCO over its competitors. The fifth reason; that SCO UNIX is legally unencumbered, contains some inflamatory statements that hint at litigious behavior to come. In an open letter [sco.com] from Darl McBride, SCO has stated that the GPL license violates the US Constitution and current US Copyright and patent laws. From a legal perspective, it seems that SCO is gearing up for a floodgates argument (the weakest kind) that even if Linux doesn't contain SCO code, the GPL license itself is void such that no software can be distributed under the terms of the GPL. This would leave an opening for SCO to attempt to claim ownership of Linux technologies that have not been implicated in SCO's original lawsuit.
    "SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws. . . ." "Based on the views of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court, we believe that adoption and use of the GPL by significant parts of the software industry was a mistake. The positions of the Free Software Foundation and Red Hat against proprietary software are ill-founded and are contrary to our system of copyright and patent laws. We believe that responsible corporations throughout the IT industry have advocated use of the GPL without full analysis of its long-term detriment to our economy. We are confident that these corporations will ultimately reverse support for the GPL, and will pursue a more responsible direction.


    In the meantime, the U.S. Congress has authorized legal action against copyright violators under the Copyright Act and its most recent amendment, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. SCO intends to fully protect its rights granted under these Acts against all who would use and distribute our intellectual property for free, and would strip out copyright management information from our proprietary code, use it in Linux, and distribute it under the GPL. "

    Now, McBride is essentially arguing that the Court will find that it is morally wrong for people to develop free software, or software for free since profit is the engine that blah blah blah:

    We do so knowing that the voices of thousands of open source developers 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,'" McBride said.

    Okay, admit it guys, if there was ever one company you wish Microsoft would just up and swallow, it's this one!
  • Beautiful (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 0x0d0a (568518) on Friday April 02, 2004 @11:25PM (#8753190) Journal
    The first is the Novell copyright situation. To me, it's not clear who's in the right here.

    McBride: Would you buy an operating system without the source-code copyright? If you don't have copyright, they can turn around the next day and screw you.

    Sontag: Instead, they waited nine years.

    McBride: We have no doubts that our Unix copyright claims are valid.


    One must, of course, ask why SCO felt that they had to wait years before notifying Linux folks of their alleged horrific infringements, and then felt that it was necessary to avoid actually *telling* Linux folks what the alleged infringements year until months and multiple court orders forced them to do so.

    Sontag: We don't have to knock out the GPL for us to succeed on the copyright issue. The GPL itself supports, in a lot of ways, our positions. Section 0 of the GPL states that the legit copyright holder has to place a notice assigning the copyright over to the GPL.

    All these contributions of our IP did not have an assignment by SCO saying here, 'We assign these copyrights to the GPL.' The fact that we participated with Linux does not mean that we inadvertently contributed our code to the GPL. You can't contribute inadvertently to Linux. We feel we have a very strong position based on the GPL.


    First, this tidbit:

    'We assign these copyrights to the GPL.'

    Okay, enough fun has been made of Sontag and McBride's lack of competence when it comes to IP, so I'll avoid the jokes. You don't "assign a copyright to a license" (though GNU contributors are required to assign their copyright to the FSF for a number of reasons, in addition to licensing it under the GPL -- Linux is not a GNU project.)

    Uh, huh. The fact that you added them to a file containing a GPL header doesn't count, eh? It's been well understood for many years that one header works for multiple contributions. When it comes to licensing, intent matters, and there was very clearly intent to GPL this code. I can't understand how you could make any kind of a counterargument.

    The fact that we participated with Linux does not mean that we inadvertently contributed our code to the GPL.

    Well, the alternative you have is that you committed massive infringement of thousands of IP holders that licensed their Linux code under the GPL. It's one or the other, SCO. If you want to go after Linux (and it's a damned weak argument -- I can't see how you'd manage to win it), you're also admitting that you deliberately committed a far worse crime. The potential costs of years of theft of perhaps millions of copies of Linux would easily bankrupt your company. I would expect that a shrewd mediator would find that donation of your code's copyright to the IP holders as a group would be the most acceptable form of restitution (trying to work out monentary damages from a class action lawsuit by a mass of coders with no interest in your money would be hard to resolve), which would put you back at square one, except without your money.

    McBride: We will admit the things we've contributed and that we can't claw them back.

    Darl, your second-in-command just said otherwise five seconds ago. C'mon, guys. At least maintain a cohesive position.

    We think we have protection under both the GPL and copyright law.

    This makes no sense. Name one right granted you by the GPL to either your IP or anyone else's IP that would entitle you to "protection" from other people using this code. If your code or other people's code is GPLed, everyone is clearly in the right to use it.

    the copyright holder must make an explicit assignment, typically in writing, in a contract.

    No. Team-written software is a form of joint authorship, which does not require explicit copyright assignment. While SCO might be able to argue that perhaps they have sole copyright ownership of the patch itself, the patched work is also owned by all the other authors of Linux, who
  • The tragedy of SCO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Infonaut (96956) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Saturday April 03, 2004 @12:30AM (#8753550) Homepage Journal
    What a freakin' shame that a once great company has become so pathetic. This article from 1999 [cnn.com] reminded me of how long and tortured the road has been for what is now just the soulless shell of what used to be SCO.

  • by Hut_Mul (601978) on Saturday April 03, 2004 @02:13AM (#8753976)
    "We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code," - Darl McBride, 5/1/2003

    Mr McBride asserts that there is line-by-line code copied into the Linux Kernel

    "When you look in the code base and you see line-by-line copy of our Unix System V code... you see that everything is taken straight across. Everything is exactly the same except they have stripped off the copyright notices and pretended it was just Linux code. There could not be a more straightforward case on the Linux side." - Darl McBride, 6/27/2003

    Darl is confident that the SCO case is just and good. It couldn't be any more straightforward. The line-by-line copying is so blatant that SCO will win.

    "To date, we claim that more than one million lines of UNIX System V protected code have been contributed to Linux through this model. The flaws inherent in the Linux process must be openly addressed and fixed." - Darl McBride, 9/9/2003

    Millions, and millions lines of code have been copied right into the Linux kernel!

    "A lot of code that you'll be seeing coming on in these copyright cases is not going to be line-by-line code. It will be more along the lines of nonliteral copying, which has more to do with infringement." - Darl McBride, 4/1/2004

    Darl.. what happened? For the last year there has been line-by-line copying from UNIX V to Linux. Now "when the rubber hit's the road" that line-by-line thing isn't happening. It is more along the lines of infringement? I'm so disappointed.

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Working...