Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Software IBM Linux

Unsealed SCO Email Reveals Linux Code is Clean 733

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the we-tried-to-tell dept.
rm69990 writes "In a recently unsealed email in the SCO vs. IBM case, it appears that an outside consultant, hired by SCO in 2002, failed to find copyright violations in the Linux Kernel. This was right around the time Darl McBride, who has before been hired by litigious companies as CEO, was hired. It appears that before SCO even began its investigation, they were hoping to find a smoking gun, not believing that Linux could possibly not contain Unix code. Apparently, they ignored the advice of this consultant."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Unsealed SCO Email Reveals Linux Code is Clean

Comments Filter:
  • by SCO$699FeeTroll (695565) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @05:54PM (#13067989) Journal
    ...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.
  • by nokilli (759129) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @05:54PM (#13067995)
    Quoting Darl McBride:
    "We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code... we're finding code that looks likes it's been obfuscated to make it look like it wasn't UnixWare code--but it was."
    Quoting George Bush:
    "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
    I want to pre-answer the next "Ask Slashdot" question: How do you build a bullshit detector? Well, you get a cardboard box, and you get a magic marker. You use the magic marker to draw a dial on the box where one end is labeled TRUE and the other end is labeled BULLSHIT.

    Then you draw a needle on the dial that points to BULLSHIT.

    Then whenever you hear anybody on the TV who has the word 'CHIEF' or 'EXECUTIVE' or 'OFFICER' in their title, you point the box at the TV and there's your answer.

    (also works with radio, newspapers and the Internet. Patent Pending of course.)
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:07PM (#13068131)
      Holy crap it works, you should patent it.
    • by rocker_wannabe (673157) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:31PM (#13068338)

      Get real! It's not all BULLSHIT! Some of it is just plain lies!

      • by jarich (733129) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:38PM (#13068396) Homepage Journal
        Get real! It's not all BULLSHIT! Some of it is just plain lies!

        That's right.. like "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

        • by anagama (611277) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Thursday July 14, 2005 @08:12PM (#13068968) Homepage

          That's right.. like "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

          I long for the days of a president who got a bit of nookie on the side. It's a far better situation than a president who fucks us over, fucks others over, and generates piles of dead bodies. On the other hand, my fossil fuel stocks have been kickin' ass -- even with today's hit on speculation China will not consume as much oil as it has been. Anyway ... if Bush spent more time getting laid instead of boosting profits for his oil cronies, the world would be a better place (and my portfolio worth less -- some cognitive dissonance here but not much -- I'd prefer lower profits and more peace).

        • by brandido (612020) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @08:24PM (#13069034) Homepage Journal
          Sorry to get off topic here, but I cannot let such a pathetic comparison stand.

          Are you seriously saying that since Clinton lied about getting a blowjob, it is OK that the Bush administration lied about intelligence to justify going to war? Don't forget, Clinton got impeached for his lie by the House, but not convicted by the Senate. Given the fact that the repurcussions of Bush's lie is so much greater (we are at fucking war and there was no uranium purchased from Africa, no WMDs, no connection to 9/11), shouldn't the consequences be greater? Maybe Impeachment, Conviction and Jail time? I would say one day for each death that has occurred during the Iraq war - that should work out to between 30 to 300 years.

          Sorry to not have much of a sense of humor about this, but the repurcussions of this lie are just too tragic and painful.
    • by team99parody (880782) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:45PM (#13068456) Homepage
      I forwarded this to our corporate risk group that Linux's source has been audited and proven clean.

      I encouraged them to try to get a similar audit of Windows from one of Microsoft's competitors before we include Windows in or bundle Windows with any of our future products.

      • by SirSlud (67381) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:19PM (#13068655) Homepage
        Word up. How can anybody prove that?

        Still, I do think Windows is probably fairly clean.

        I believe the BSD license is the way. If you talk about market forces, I think in general those that produce sweet-ass code under BSD licenses will be employed anyway. If you demand that the user open their own source, you're essentially asking, "If you use our code, and close it up, We'll squash you in court?" Good idea, but how do you prove it? You've already ensured that violaters are fairly difficult to find. The answer might be easy for us developers, but its way to complicated for the courts. You wanna push open source? Eat em from the inside, where they can use your code on their terms, but you can close off the 'innovation' valve at any point. Then you just point out that everybody knows how to build a fucking motor; we all just build motors with different purposes and strengths. The concept itself shouldn't be limited to one company; what we're trying to reward in a market is being able to deliver the solution in a way that people like. Competition *stems* from others being on relatively equal ground.
        • by Belial6 (794905) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @10:24PM (#13069678)
          Uh, given that Microsoft has been cought Illegally copying code for inclusion in thier OS multiple times, I don't know how you can assume that they are clean now. The first biggie I remember was when they copied Stacker code into DOS 6. They didn't even bother to remove Stackers name from the code.
          • by utlemming (654269) on Friday July 15, 2005 @01:01AM (#13070441) Homepage
            Your right. The following link is a story about how Microsoft stole the NT kernel from Digital. http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/Print.cfm?Art icleID=4494 [windowsitpro.com]

            Does anybody else find it ironic that Microsoft that stole a kernel is touting that Linux isn't clean? The best part is that VMS and NT are so simular that even some of the terminology is the same. Maybe Darl took lessons from Microsoft, except SCO is claiming to be the victem.
            • We can be quite confident that NT does not contain VMS code: VMS was written mostly in VAX assembly language. NT was written, I believe, mostly in C. In any case, one thing we can be sure of is that it was NOT written in VAX assembly language.

              I'm not even sure that NT can be said to contain ideas proprietary to VMS. Is there any evidence of that? The general nature of VMS has been public knowledge since the outset, and as far as I know there is nothing in VMS that requires unusual algorithms or coding t

      • by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:55PM (#13069518)
        I forwarded this to our corporate risk group that Linux's source has been audited and proven clean. I encouraged them to try to get a similar audit of Windows from one of Microsoft's competitors before we include Windows in or bundle Windows with any of our future products.

        Nice, that'll get you promoted.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:14PM (#13068634)
      Here's the text of the email, courtesy of Groklaw.

      Groklaw is intermittantly slow for me (database problems or whatever) and so I want to make sure this can be read by all.

      I'd have to say this looks pretty damning, all said--it shows they found nothing and persisted anyway... Lovely.


      From: Reg Broughton
      Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 10:05 PM
      To: Darl McBride
      Subject: Fwd: Re: Patents and IP Investigation

      DARL

      we can probably track down Bob Swartz if you want to dig further. Based on our last conversation, this summary of the code investigation probably closes that discussion.

      This of course does not invalidate any of your statements on Caldera owning the central IP, and being the core provider of key technology and IP over the years into the UNIX and Linux communities.

      REG

      Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:26:51 -0700
      From: Michael Davidson
      Organization: Caldera International
      X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I)
      X-Accept-Language: en
      To: Reg Broughton
      Subject: Re: Patents and IP Investigation

      The actual investigation itself was done by an outside consultant (Bob Swartz) hired by SCO. I worked with him and reviewed his findings.

      My recollection is that Bob produced an initial proposal for the project which outlined the methodology to be used, and he *may* have also provided a final report, but I don't have copies of either.

      The project was a result of SCO's executive management refusing to believe that it was possible for Linux and much of the GNU software to have come into existance without *someone* *somewhere* having copied pieces of proprietary UNIX source code to which SCO owned the copyright. The hope was that we would find a "smoking gun" somwhere in code that was being used by Red Hat and/or the other Linux companies that would give us some leverage. (There was, at one stage, the idea that we would sell licenses to corporate customers who were using Linux as a kind of "insurance policy" in case it turned out that they were using code which infringed our copyright).

      Note that the scope of the project was limited to looking for evidence of copyright infringement (we didn't consider patents because SCO didn't own the rights to any patents, and more general IP issues were just too vague - besides SCO was *sure* that it was going to find evidence of copyright violations which are comparatively straightforward to prove once you have found them)

      An outside consultant was brought in bacause I had alrady voiced the opinion (based on very detailed knowledge of our own source code and a reasonably broad exposure to Linux and other open source projects) that it was a waste of time and that we were not going to find anything.

      Bob worked on the project for (I think) 4 to 6 months during which time he looked at the Linux kernel, and a large number of libraries and utilities and compared them with several different vesrions of AT&T UNIX source code. (Most of this work was automated using tools which were designed to to fuzzy matching and ignore trivial differences in formatting and spelling)

      At the end, we had found absolutely *nothing*. ie no evidence of any copyright infringement whatsoever.

      There is, indeed, a lot of code that is common between UNIX and Linux (all of the X Windows system, for example) but invariably it turned out that the common code was something that both we (SCO) and the Linux community had obtained (legitimately) from some third party.

      md
  • Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones (18351) * on Thursday July 14, 2005 @05:54PM (#13067997) Homepage Journal
    It appears that before SCO even began its investigation, they were hoping to find a smoking gun, not believing that Linux could possibly not contain Unix code. Apparently, they ignored the advice of this consultant."

    Gee, that sounds familiar. Seems to be a popular strategy in both business and *cough*cough*cough, government these days. Seriously though, this is a model that does appear to have some traction in a variety of fields in that if you press your case hard enough, and you convince enough of the right people, there is ground to be gained from simply sticking to your guns no matter what the reality happens to be. In my business, when you have a theory, you design an experiment to test it and collect data in an attempt to disprove that theory. When the data supports the theory, then you are golden. The way NOT to run business, science (or government) is to come up with a theory (or a desire) and then try to fit the evidence to support what you want. This of course is exactly what has happened with the SCO case, a couple of other business debacles in the news recently and interestingly, in the hunt for WMD in Iraq.

    • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

      by the_mighty_$ (726261) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:08PM (#13068140)

      this is a model that does appear to have some traction in a variety of fields in that if you press your case hard enough, and you convince enough of the right people, there is ground to be gained from simply sticking to your guns no matter what the reality happens to be

      Important note: whenever a business/government tries this horrible tactic, they always fail. SCO's case is (has) colapsed, people all around the world view the US government as untrustworthy, etc. Sometimes it takes a while, but they always lose in the end.

      News stories like this are just a nice reminder to everyone not to try tactics like this.

      • Lose? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by StevenMaurer (115071) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:33PM (#13069424) Homepage
        Your comment reminds me of the Simpson's episode where the departing Mafia don says "Remember: In the End, Crime Doesn't Pay", and then gets into his fleet of limos.

        Face facts, SCO was a company whose stock price was floundering. Then Darl came along, ginned up a lawsuit, and multiplied it manyfold. He also got real revenue for the company from "sales" of "licenses" to Microsoft. He's already a multi-millionaire as a result. And despite how slashdot members feel, it's extremely unlikely he'll ever see any jail time.

        Big name spammers are much the same. We may all hate them, but they've done very well by themselves. What's the worst that most have them have seen from their billions of dollars of theft of service? A slap on the wrist.

        Same thing for Bush and Rove. Had either been remotely honorable or honest, Bush wouldn't have won reelection. Tell me, how is is losing?

        Face facts: evil tactics are often winning strategies. Especially because our collective tolerance for corruption is so high (and going higher).

  • by Toby The Economist (811138) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @05:55PM (#13067999)
    Is this really still news?

    --
    Toby
  • Look, this whole process is retarded, but hiring a consultant to investigate doesn't necessarily mean the end.

    Also, while SCO's PR has talking about Linux (after IBM started implying it), this was ORIGINALLY a lawsuit about the derivative works from a company working with a Unix license that IBM bought. It was originally a breach of contract case, not a "Linux is a derivative work" case, it just got weird when they started flailing around.

    Alex
    • Look, this whole process is retarded, but hiring a consultant to investigate doesn't necessarily mean the end.

      Not for IBM's case, no. But it DEFINITELY has a pretty fricking serious impact on the slander/lanham act/whatever cases that RedHat and others will be starting up just as soon as the SCO-IBM case ends, I would expect.

      What the consultant thinks isn't really important. What matters is what SCO knew at the time, as contributed to by this consultant.

      derivative works from a company working with a U
    • by gsfprez (27403) * on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:11PM (#13068161)
      this was ORIGINALLY a lawsuit about the derivative works from a company working with a Unix license that IBM bought.

      what are you talking about? In their first filing,

      http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200407041 70212250 [groklaw.net]

      their first cause of action was "Linux is full of UNIX, which belongs to us"

      First cause of action - (Misappropriation of Trade Secrets--Utah Code Ann. 13-24-1 et seq.)

      this is in reference to their placing UNIX code in linux... read the previous 103 statements to see what they are alleging.

      in their second (and current) complaint, they keep it up!

      http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200402070 22922296 [groklaw.net]

      3. A variant or clone of UNIX currently exists in the computer marketplace called "Linux." Linux is, in material part, based upon UNIX source code and methods.

      4. The UNIX software distribution vendors, such as IBM, are contractually and legally prohibited from giving away or disclosing proprietary UNIX source code and methods for external business purposes, such as contributions to Linux, or from otherwise using UNIX for the benefit of others. This prohibition extends to derivative work products that are modifications of, or derivative works based on, UNIX System V source code or technology. IBM is violating this prohibition, en masse, as though no prohibition or proprietary restrictions exist at all with respect to the UNIX technology. As a result of IBM's wholesale disregard of its contractual and legal obligations to SCO, Linux 2.4.x and 2.6.x and the development Linux kernel, 2.5.x, are replete with protected technology. As such, the Linux 2.4.x and Linux 2.5.x and 2.6.x kernels are unauthorized derivatives of UNIX System V.

      the are, have, and continue to claim that Linux is full of Unix, and that its a derivative because IBM put UNIX code in Linux.

      That's the basics of their case, in a few words... they are hiding that contention behind their contracts with IBM. But how did they breach contract with SCO? - SCO alleges that they put UNIX in Linux.

      If there is no illegal UNIX in Linux, then they've not breached any contracts, have they? To have breached contract, they would have had to have infringed on SCO's "UNIX copyrights"

      • their first cause of action was "Linux is full of UNIX, which belongs to us"


        (Regardless of the validity of their claims) Their allegation is that developers who had access to the confidential unix code were tainted and had no business working on very similiar pieces of linux.
  • Summary (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gunpowda (825571)
    not believing that Linux could possibly not contain Unix code. Is there any more awkward way that could have been expressed?
  • by bhsx (458600) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @05:58PM (#13068037)
    Probably not. This whole thing is still going to take another year or so to play out. Not the SCO has a snowball's chance; but they'll keep going at least until their "prepaid" lawyers run out on them. Hopefully that'll happen before they get to court. Actually, hopefully not, as if they were to quit halfway through the court procedings the judge would probably ask the bar association to investigate them. F*cking lawyers, er rather, THESE f*cking lawyers.
  • by WilliamSChips (793741) <full@infinity.gmail@com> on Thursday July 14, 2005 @05:59PM (#13068040) Journal
    Yet more proof that the Googlebomb calling SCO "litigious bastards" is correct.

    Maybe now the case will be dismissed...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2005 @05:59PM (#13068043)
    As SCO continues to desintigrate, it is import to keep an eye those responsible who worked there as they try to find their way back into the respectable computing world.

    No one should be able to participate in a sickeningly slezy shakedown like SCO tried to pull off and just wash their hands and pretend it never happended.

    Of course not everyone associated with SCO is guilty of sleaze but keeping an eye out for key SCO people and either making sure they don't get hired or at least making it known to companies that would think of hiring the scumbags it isn't worth the bad press/karma.

  • Shareholder SUits (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PingXao (153057) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:00PM (#13068053)
    Bwahahaha! Hopefully this revelation will lead to a bunch of lawsuits against the directors and officers of SCO for willful malfeasance. This may be the opening that allows them to pierce the corporate veil and go after them personally. Darl is not the only one richly deserving of jail time.
  • by CyricZ (887944) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:01PM (#13068064)
    Now that it looks like their case is beyond salvation, and suppose they were to lose their lawsuit and become financially void, what would happen to the UnixWare and OpenServer codebases? Would they be transferred to one of TSG's debitors?

    Indeed, if IBM did happen to acquire the rights to UnixWare and OpenServer via such means, then it would be very helpful to the community if they released the source code to both products. Of course, Novell's involvement may sticky things up a bit. But it would be great to have the systems available to the community.

    Being a former sysadmin of SCO systems, I remember them fondly from the late 1980s and early 1990s. With some community-based work, they could easily be made useful again today. On older systems they would fly, thus making obsolete hardware usable again.

    • Now that it looks like their case is beyond salvation, and suppose they were to lose their lawsuit and become financially void, what would happen to the UnixWare and OpenServer codebases? Would they be transferred to one of TSG's debitors?

      More likely sold and the money from the sale given to the creditors. Creditors often don't care about the actual assets of a bankrupt company, but how much they can recoup from the sale of said assets.

      • Indeed, it would be interesting if IBM ended up purchasing from whoever the source code and distribution rights, and then proceeded to turn them over to the community. At the very least it would further help ensure that they (the source base) would not be abused again in the future against the open source community. It could potentially gain IBM many fans, not to mention make a very positive contribution back to the community. This could work out very well to their advantage.
      • by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:19PM (#13068234) Journal
        2003 SCO sues IBM for breech of contract.
        2004 It is revealed that SCO is getting money from Microsoft through indirect means.
        2005 A memo reveals that SCO knew all along that there was no copyrighted code in Linux.
        2006 Case against IBM dismissed, SCO files for bankruptcy, split up. Unix rights bought by OSC.
        2007 OSC sues IBM for breach of contract.
        2008 It is revealed that OSC is getting money from Microsoft through indirect means.
        2009 A memo reveals that OSC knew all along that there was no copyrighted code in Linux.
        2010 Case against IBM dismissed, OSC files for bankruptcy, split up. Unix rights bought COS.
        2011 COS sues IBM for breach of contract.
        2012 It is revealed that COS is getting money from Microsoft through indirect means.
        2013 A memo reveals that COS knew all along that there was no copyrighted code in Linux.
        2014 Case against IBM dismissed, COS files for bankruptcy, split up. Unix rights bought by CSO.
  • by James A. D. Joyce (742507) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:03PM (#13068085) Homepage Journal
    ...as much as I'd love for SCO to get their arses handed to them, I wouldn't get excited until their suit is actually thrown out of court.
    • by jfengel (409917) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:25PM (#13068286) Homepage Journal
      Dude, you're too focused on ends. Enjoy the process.

      Each day brings a new humilation to Darl McBride. Treasure this moment, because all too soon the case will be thrown out of court and then you won't have Darl to kick around any more.

      So just relax and enoy, and don't be so focused on the final result. (No, your girlfriend didn't pay me to say that.)
  • by The Lynxpro (657990) <lynxpro@g m a i l.com> on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:05PM (#13068104)

    Tune in the news and pay attention to the video images of Bernie Edwards going to jail for 25 years. Now, go down to your local "adult" store and buy some lube in preparation for your own date with justice.

    • by CyricZ (887944) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:08PM (#13068142)
      Err, you mean Bernie Ebbers. But the real question is: will he actually spend 25 years in jail? That's doubtful. It wouldn't be surprising if he was actually out within 2 or 3 years, and back at the helm of some corporation within half a decade from now. CEOs are never held truly accountable for their actions. It won't happen with Ebbers, and it won't happen with McBridge. That is just a flaw with the system.

    • by typical (886006) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:24PM (#13068681) Journal
      No, he really isn't.

      Ebbers (not Edwards) is one of a very rare elite -- wealthy white-collar criminals who are getting the book thrown at them. There are very few prosecutions in this arena. It's expensive, you are facing hordes of lawyers, and people wonder why you aren't hauling off murderers.

      Ebbers is getting screwed specifically because he was involved in one of a handlful of financial cases that were so egregious that they caught the attention of the popular media, and hence the mind of the public. If you are a politician, and you represent a public outraged over some criminal, you do what you can to have the book thrown at that criminal.

      Darl did not piss off anyone other than the statistically insignificant (if vastly disproportionate in influence in the tech world) members of the open source community. My mother has no idea that Darl exists, and there isn't really any way to pack his crimes into a one-sentence damning sound byte that appeals to the public(Ebbers had to deal with pictures of blue collar workers and the sentence "they lost their retirement money"). Nothing scares the shit out of a voting baby boomer like the concept of someone losing their retirement money.

      Darl, IIRC, came off of the whole thing rather well, with no liability and plenty of money. And SCO was in the shitter already, so his rep is more of just a CEO willing to try some long shots when not much remains than the guy who killed SCO. He *did* manage the media rather poorly, getting personally involved instead of having a more competent spokesman involved, but that's really the only black mark against him.
  • by Rick Zeman (15628) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:07PM (#13068120)
    ...and in other news, kitten naps.....
  • by Theovon (109752) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:07PM (#13068130)
    I talked at length with that guy from the Toqueville institute. I tried and tried to explain that Linux is just a kernel, only a small part of an OS, and that anyone with a decent CS education is taught everything they need to know to develop a kernel as simple as the first Linux kernel that Linus wrote. I explained that Linux is a social phenomenon more than a technical achievement, because, conceptually, kernels just aren't such a big deal (although debugging them is a hassle, well handled by the 'many eyes' of the community).

    No matter what I said, he was not able to grasp it. He just could not believe that one guy could write an OS kernel. But he really didn't understand what a kernel is either, so that was a bit of a barrier also. The fact that various CS professors had come out and said the same thing didn't faze him.

    Darl McBride is just another non-technical businessman who thinks that operating systems are black magic that only huge teams of people can write. His reasoning leads him to believe that if "one guy" did it, but one guy really couldn't have done it, then he must have copied it. Pure, simple, logical, but unsound in that it completely doesn't account for just how simple or complex a kernel is.

    Just like how some people can't possibly understand how a piston engine works, some people aren't cut out to grok OS kernels. Darl just doesn't have the brains for it. (Plus, his primary motivation is to make money, not actually UNDERSTAND anything.)
    • by EvilMagnus (32878) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:52PM (#13068501)
      Let us Quote from the Book of Dilbert, Chapter 12, Verse 3:
      And lo, the PHB did say: "Anything I do not understand is simple."
      Amen.

      In this case, the 'simple' bit is a simple idea - only teams of programmers can make a kernel. It doesn't matter that it's incorrect, just that it's what the PHB believes. It is their dogma. All evidence presented to them is filtered through this belief, or just plain ignored.

      Here endeth the lesson.

    • Is what I first thought you wrote. It's really easy to picture Torquemada as an SCO lawyer. I see him shouting "Confess! Linux is of the Devil!" and threatening Linux users with litigation and burning at the stake if they don't pay SCO their licensing fee.
    • by Spoing (152917) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @08:01PM (#13068915) Homepage
      I talked at length with that guy from the Toqueville institute. ...

      ... Just like how some people can't possibly understand how a piston engine works, some people aren't cut out to grok OS kernels.

      The problem was, you didn't listen to him. If you did, you would have heard him clearly say;

      "I'm a PR agent. I've been paid to take a position and I am glad to suck up your time as that's what I am paid to do. I get bonus points by looking somewhat reasonable while you loose your composure in an attempt to convince me of something that I have no personal stake in beyond a paycheck."
  • by twilight30 (84644) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:11PM (#13068165) Homepage
    'And why did Darl tell the world, and Congress, that because Linux was written by volunteers, there was no way to know if it was clean code, that it was a "free-for-all", that "there's not a policeman to check in the code at the Linux kernel level to ensure that there are not violations", when they already knew that it presented very clear evidence of purity?'

    Because Darl is a lying cunt, that's why.
  • by ChipMonk (711367) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:13PM (#13068184) Journal
    Maybe, having to put "Sank Sunbeam and The SCO Group through excessive litigation" on his resume, and a special "Ambulance Chaser" license plate on his car.
  • Hmmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by frank_adrian314159 (469671) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:13PM (#13068185) Homepage
    Should I be happy because someone ignored a consultant or sad that they caused so much trouble by doing so? Decisions, decisions...
  • by CyricZ (887944) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:16PM (#13068215)
    Notice the forwarded email from Michael Davidson to Reg Broughton contains the email header
    X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I).

    That is very interesting, indeed. Why would SCO be using Windows 98 machines internally? Indeed, one would expect them to be using SCO UnixWare.

  • by Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:20PM (#13068247)
    Virtually every news item posted here can start a flamewar. Amidst the Microsoft bashing, several voices will point out good things they have done. Praise or bash the iPod, and you will generate a response. It's nice to see that there is one thing that unites us all, liberal/conservative, Apple fan/hater, and that is the universal agreement that Darl is scum.

    There are very few universally accepted truths in this world, and it is nice to be reminded of them once in a while.
  • Insurance (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Locke2005 (849178) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:23PM (#13068268)
    There was, at one stage, the idea that we would sell licenses to corporate customers who were using Linux as a kind of "insurance policy" in case it turned out that they were using code which infringed our copyright...

    Yeah, I got a friend named Guido who sells "insurance policies" too... his catch phrase is "Nice place you've got here... be a shame if anything should happen to it!"

    Am I misreading the law, or does this actually qualify as extortion?

  • Wait!!!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Laura_DilDio (874259) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:24PM (#13068279)
    But what about all the journalists (some call me that..but basically I'm a paid MonkeySoft shill) that SCO invited to see examples of infringing code. I know we had to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so I can't talk about what I saw, but believe me there was lots of powerpoint slides!!!
  • by WillAffleckUW (858324) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:31PM (#13068343) Homepage Journal
    doesn't mean you can't start a war of destruction against an innocent party.

    Especially if you have lots of lawyers and elitists who care nothing for truth and honor.
  • Media vs. Reality (Score:3, Insightful)

    by salesgeek (263995) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:54PM (#13068515) Homepage
    SCO bought the controversy mongering press position on linux: skeptical that it was real, and challenging it's performance and legitimacy at every bend. The press hype things things because it generates sales (ad impressions, magazines, etc...). I think, that SCO and McBride got caught up in hype, much like many people got caught up in polls promising a Kerry win inthe last US election. As much as everyone wanted everything to be true, and the news was reporting it, making it seem more true, but at the end, just as the real experts said, the hype and the truth turned out to be two different things.

    I think this happened to SCO on a grand scale - and they fed upon the media of the time and the desire for ANYTHING to stop Linux coming from MS and it's closest allies. They even got money from them. They got fame from the reporters like O'Gara. Their stock would go up when they reported more.

    Fortunately, just because a newspaper prints it, it does not always mean it's true.
  • Sad sad Caldera (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kalislashdot (229144) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @08:40PM (#13069128) Homepage
    As everyone knows, SCO is really Caldera, they just took over SCOs name when they bought the rights to UNIX.

    It's a bummer, my real first heavy use of Linux was with Caldera. I remember visiting threir booth at a Comdex in the late 90's

    What seems weird to me is how such a small startup could buy UNIX, you think someone ike IBM would pay 10 times as much to get a hold of it and lock it away.

    In the end I think McBride should be brought up on criminal charges as this was totally a stunt to juck up stock prices.

    I predict that after this si all over the rights to UNIX will be bought to someone and then releae free into the world, just like those groups that get together and buy up empty land just to keep it empty. I do not know how long it will take but I will refer back to this when it does.
  • by Hosiah (849792) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @08:43PM (#13069152)
    Of course Linux code copies Unix code in many places. That's lines that look like:

    #include

    and...

    {

    and...

    }

    as for all the other lines that *don't* match - aha! That's the obfuscated part!

System going down in 5 minutes.

Working...