Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Caldera Software IBM Linux

Unsealed SCO Email Reveals Linux Code is Clean 733

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Summary (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gunpowda ( 825571 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:56PM (#13068015)
    not believing that Linux could possibly not contain Unix code. Is there any more awkward way that could have been expressed?
  • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:58PM (#13068028) Journal
    It shouldn't be. We've known since almost the beginning that SCO, whose business was drying up, had invented the whole thing in the hopes that IBM would either simply buy them out or settle the case. They didn't seem to realize that Big Blue had decided that Linux was such a major part of their strategy that they'd be willing to say "See you in court". Hopefully this can all be ended so that we can watch the SEC investigation. Maybe McBride can become good buddies with Ebbers, and Ebbers can give him tips on how to have a "serious heart condition" right about the time sentencing begins.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2005 @06:59PM (#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 @07:00PM (#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 @07:01PM (#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.

  • by Gogo Dodo ( 129808 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:01PM (#13068067)
    What is news is that this is evidence that SCO knew a long time ago there was no copyright violations.
  • by Theovon ( 109752 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:07PM (#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 kyndig ( 579355 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:15PM (#13068203) Homepage
    I believe the way the open-source community works right now has some fundamental flaws that have got to be addressed. We need to address how this open-source intellectual property is developed, routed, and sold. Thousands of software developers send code to contribute to open-source projects -- but there isn't a protective device for the customer using the software to ensure they're not in violation of the law by using stolen code.

    In tracking this roller coaster, it hadn't occurred to me till just now that the overall target isn't Linux itself, rather the Open Source movement. I see more concern in this statement about Open Source development, than I do about Linux code infringement.

    Or is Open Source questioning just an added bonus tacked onto SCO claims.
  • by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:16PM (#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 Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:17PM (#13068218)
    It would be nice if there was a public list available to the open source community that outlined:

    1) The name of the SCO or company working with them employee

    2) Their position and role

    3) Some estimate of what they made in profit from SCO

    Making it public that you will be publicly bitchslapped hard if you fuck with the open source community ever again would be strong warning sign to those who look to follow a similar path of sleaze in the future.

    I think we all were a bit lucky with SCO, they were both sleazy AND incompetent. The next fuckers who try to pull something like this probably won't be as dumb.

  • by ValentineMSmith ( 670074 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:21PM (#13068252)
    I've got mod points today, but I think I'll reply rather than modding you down to the oblivion you deserve. The reason that it looks like it was printed off and scanned into a computer is...

    Because it was printed off and scanned into a computer (and no, it is not fake).

    The document was submitted in printed form as part of the discovery process. The clerk of the court then took the document and scanned it in as a PDF, allowing an image of the original (as opposed to an OCR'ed copy) to be stored electronically. This version of the document is the one released to the public on demand. Doing it this way is

    • more economical
    • more environmentally conscious
    • easier to distribute

    than trying to photocopy originals of all of these documents.

  • Darl behind bars? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by scronline ( 829910 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:29PM (#13068327) Homepage
    Ok, now the way I see it. Darl is about to have such a shadow over him that someone needs to consider criminal charges of...

    Perjury (statements in court)
    Liable (statements in written letters to the press)
    Slander (statements said anywhere he didn't physically write)
    extortion (SCO license assurance to linux users)
    Fraud (starting all this to boost SCOs stock value KNOWING he was false)

    I'm sure there's more that I haven't thought of, but that's 5 items right there. Honestly....it should be some jail time for this guy. He's already proven he makes his living from suing others...this is the kind of person that needs to be removed from society. I'd rather have a rapist living next door to me. Atleast I know what to expect from them and shooting them when they enter my home is self defense.
  • by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:31PM (#13068340) Homepage Journal
    And yet SCO's allegations in the lawsuit are equal to war in Iraq? Somehow I'm missing where the former rises to the level of the latter.
  • by stor ( 146442 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:41PM (#13068420)
    You forgot:

    - Microsoft
    - Sun Microsystems

    Cheers
    Stor
  • by team99parody ( 880782 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:45PM (#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 Covener ( 32114 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @07:51PM (#13068491)

    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.
  • Re:Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @08:02PM (#13068567)
    I don't agree with that saying though. People who server in the military learn to take orders, perhaps really dumb orders. I don't want a society filled with those people; I am afraid we may have just that anyway.

    I served. I vote. And I don't agree with the parent because that's not how our government works. It sure as hell isn't the government I served to protect.

    I have to wonder what branch of Service you came from. In the Air Force, my professional military education covered the concept of the "lawfull order" multiple times. Maybe your branch of service doesn't teach about the Nuremberg Trials? This alone introduces the concept that one does not blindly follow orders. Hardly the unthinking zombie military you imply.

    It might also be worth stressing that during my career, I was encouraged to be involved in the political process. But at the same time, there was no direction as to what that involvement should be or what political interests should be supported. My education also included stressing a seperation between the uniform and individual political activity.

    It's a shame your outfit wasn't of the same calibre... or you ignored some valuable lessons.
  • by nsayer ( 86181 ) <`moc.ufk' `ta' `reyasn'> on Thursday July 14, 2005 @08:18PM (#13068650) Homepage
    There's an opportunity here: Someone should make a SCO "wanted deck" of playing cards like they did for Saddam's buddies and sell them on ThinkGeek. Clearly Darl should be the Ace of Spades. The trouble is, I'm not sure there are 52 culprits. Still...
  • by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @08:19PM (#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 inode_buddha ( 576844 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @08:46PM (#13068813) Journal
    Yeah. Belluzo is *very* successful. Just not in a way that the technologies he manipulated can appreciate. And yes, I feel badly for you if you have a boss that reads Enderle and believes him.
  • Re:Sue SCO (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2005 @08:50PM (#13068847)
    i wanted to clear something up. just because SCO hired an outside firm to look for copied code, and the tests come back negative, does not qualify as "conclusive evidence" that SCO knew their lawsuit was bogus. ethics aside, it is completely legal for SCO to agree or disagree with some firm's opinion they hired. they are completely free to get other opinions.

    it would be wrong to call me an SCO fan, but let's not get so hasty. note that i haven't been following this closely, but is there some other legal issue i'm missing here?
  • by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @08:53PM (#13068863) Homepage Journal
    I trust that you are unfamiliar with my political positions, and have incorrectly expanded upon one point to extrapolate my entire ideology. Please allow me to clarify:
    • I supported the removal of Saddam Hussein, but I have since the first Gulf War. I don't feel that this was the best timing, as a lot of those soldiers should have been in Afghanistan looking for senior al Qaeda operatives. At the very least, waiting until it was possible to end the war going into cooler months would have led to fewer Iraqis mad at the beginning about not being able to get air conditioning in the summer.

    • I feel that if Karl Rove knew what he was doing, and I suspect he was, that he should be fired and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including fines and prison. If somehow it comes around that the leak was traceable to President Bush, then I feel he should be impeached and removed from office. You don't mess with the lives of covert operatives, whether or not they're in the field at the time.

    • I voted for Perot in 92 and 96, and wrote in McCain in 2000. I did not vote for Bush in 2004, though to be honest, I could not vote for anyone on the list in 2004, because I could not support any of them in good conscience. I did, however, vote on almost everything else on the ballot, with the possible exception of a water commissioner.

    • I support the right to choose, and I detest the Patriot Act.

    • I support wholesale overhaul of copyright legislation to bring it back down to a reasonable time limit of, say, 30 years or so.

    • I support tightening of requirements for issuing a patent.

    • I am leaning towards support of reviews of prices charged on prescription medications in the United States. Haven't quite made up my mind on that one, though.

    • I have no desire to be in a union, but I have no problem with people forming them, just so long as I have the right to opt out of them, or at least to choose how my union dues are spent.

    • I support the right to bear arms as an individual right, but I support background checks to help ensure that felons have less chance to get them. I also support full prosecution of those felons that try to purchase them.

    • I support raising the mileage requirements on light trucks and SUVs.

    • I am skeptical of global warming claims, but I also choose to play it safe and support the development of alternative energy forms, particularly nuclear energy. If global warming is found to be true, then we're moving ahead on reducing sources. If it's found to be false, then we still have cleaner air.

    • I don't like liars in the White House, whoever they are. There's a difference between hiding secret operations vital to national security (even if they're in a gray area legally) and lying about things happening that should not be. I was too young to be bothered much by Iran-Contra, though I probably would have been in retrospect. There were things in the Bush '88 administration that began to bother me. Clinton was sleazy and everyone knew it, but he was also as teflon-coated as Reagan was. I'm still not convinced that there wasn't more going on there that we really should know about. I'm sure we'll find out in the next 25-75 years.

    So now that you know a little more about me, please keep it in mind the next time that you feel the need to jerk that knee and label me a "fringe partisan." :)
  • Re:Darl behind bars? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Lost+Found ( 844289 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:17PM (#13068994)
    It's spelled libel, and slander and libel are civil matters, not criminal ones.

    But I would like to see him tried for fraud.
  • I guess (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@yahoGINSBERGo.com minus poet> on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:22PM (#13069020) Homepage Journal
    The point is less that the consultant said that there was no copyright code in Linux (which you are correct in saying the consultant couldn't possibly have known for sure) and more that SCO (a) asked the consultant for a smoking gun, (b) the consultant failed to find one, and (c) SCO claimed to have one anyway.


    If SCO had been serious about investigating the Linux kernel, they would have had needed to hire a sizable team to perform the investigation. There is no evidence they ever did so - rather, they hired this guy - so it seems reasonable to suppose they didn't want to carry out an in-depth study.


    This could mean they were convinced that Linux - as a whole - WAS a gigantic piracy effort, that there was little or no original code in it, which really would only require a single person to verify. It would explain the way they went about it, along with the gigantic claims they were making.


    It seems more likely, however, that SCO had decided Linux was a sizable threat to their UnixWare product and one that could not be attacked by SCO through competition. (SCO doesn't have the raw talent, plain and simple, and the cost of UnixWare was higher than the support provided would justify.)


    If Linux could not be beaten by competition, could not be bought out, could not be undercut, and could not be out-advertised, SCO's actions become more understandable, despicable as they are.

  • Re:Yet more proof (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Pensacola Tiger ( 538962 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:35PM (#13069105)
    Hell no, we don't want the case merely dismissed; we want a summary judgement in favor of IBM and a legal decision that there is no UNIX code in Linux. Otherwise some other bunch of 'litigious bastards' will try the same scam again. Icing on the cake would be prison terms for the tSCOg executives and sanctions against Boies and company.
  • Re:Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by adamy ( 78406 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:38PM (#13069122) Homepage Journal
    I was in the Army, and was an officer. I am well versed in the concept of a legal order. An order can be both legal and dumb.

    I don't think it is healthy for the citizens of a free country to be beaten into submission as is done to people in basic training. Yes, we need people, good people, in our armed forces. We also need people in our society that have nothing to do with the military.

    BTW, my outfit was the United States Military Academy at West Point. Class of 1993. And I'll be damned if I agree with anyone that says that unit is of lower calibre (I like your British spelling) than any unit in the Military.
  • Sad sad Caldera (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kalislashdot ( 229144 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:40PM (#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.
  • Re:Interesting (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Rob_Bryerton ( 606093 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @09:52PM (#13069207) Homepage
    I usually thank people who have served our country, but never someone such as yourself, what with your arrogance and weird, misplaced sense of entitlement. Why do you think you're special? Because you did your job? Get a grip...

    What's with the cowards who are *so* convinced of their stance, yet they're afraid and/or ashamed to post using even a pseudonym? Coward. That's right, you're a coward, hiding.

    Now go ahead mods, do your thing & mod this as a troll because you disagree with me and I'm not PC. Then afterwards you can go look up Troll and learn what it really means. (Here's a hint kids: it does not mean "one who holds opposing views")
  • Re:Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @10:05PM (#13069278)
    I don't think it is healthy for the citizens of a free country to be beaten into submission as is done to people in basic training. Yes, we need people, good people, in our armed forces. We also need people in our society that have nothing to do with the military.

    I completely agree. Like I said earlier - the grandparent's post is wrong. Our system does not require one to serve to have a voice. And nor should it.

    What I resent is the implication that Active Duty or former military personel lack the ability to apply individual or critical thought. The "beating in to submission" doesn't seem to hold. There seemed to be a vetting time after Basic Training where one begins to adjust to the "real" military. That's not to say the overall training doesn't have some effect - I haven't been in any civilian group that's operated like a military one. Completely different culture and structure. But somewhere in there, individuals who are smart enough to do so regain their ability to think critically. That's not always appreciated nor welcomed by the brass - just as its not always appreciated in the civilian sector. But in any case, critical thought does re-engange. I've worked with plenty of Active Duty and met plenty of ex-military to note more than a few critical thinkers in the lot.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2005 @10:11PM (#13069321)
    IANAL, but if SCO knowingly charged for a product (their proprietary code) that was, in fact, a product owned by the LINUX community under the GPL, what damages are due? To whom would they be paid? This is entirely separate from the damages due to the knowingly false claim against IBM.
  • by Belial6 ( 794905 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @11:24PM (#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 Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @11:37PM (#13069766) Homepage Journal
    I do. In the US, passenger cars have to have a certain mileage level, or else taxes are applied. IIRC, this is an average, so that while most cars fall into the higher range, the high-powered, less-efficient cars like Corvettes can still be made and sold without significant penalty.

    For a very long time, light trucks made up only a small segment of auto sales, and so were exempt because they were very often used commercially, and the benefits of commerce outweighed their smaller contribution to pollution. (Just about every Little League baseball team also seemed to have a team mom with a Suburban, and it was cool having all twelve kids pile in for the after-game pizza party.)

    With the introduction of the traditional SUV (built on truck frames and so regulated as such), and the improved handling of trucks, they became far more popular, but political pressure has left them exempt from mileage requirements. They make up something near to half of all auto sales now, though, so they really should fall within the the same limits, at least in spirit, as autos. I understand that they will not catch up with the mileage of smaller cars for the most part, but some things can be done. I'm just not sure whether forcing the issue is the best idea.
  • by utlemming ( 654269 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:01AM (#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.
  • Re:Sad sad Caldera (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:02AM (#13071181)
    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.

    This has been amply discussed on groklaw an elsewhere and the summary seems to be (IMHO):

    After the AT&T vs BSD lawsuit everyone with combined technical & legal knowledge at least suspected the UNIX copyrights to be a real mess if not a hot potato (and obviously knew for sure after reviewing non-public information).

    Case in point: once in an interview Ransom Love, then-CEO of Caldera, said IIRC that they wanted to open-source their freshly bought SYSV code but could not, due to the many copyright-holding companies involved.

    So why should IBM want such a POS?

  • by leifbk ( 745927 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @06:34AM (#13071283) Homepage

    doesn't mean you can't start a war of destruction against an innocent party.

    This is the dark side of the US legal system that people from more civilised parts of the world don't understand how you can live with. Here in Europe, the greediness and brutality of uncurbed capitalism has been quite efficiently circumscribed for the main part of last century, while you happily let the robber barons screw you (and the rest of the world) in the name of Liberty. Why is that?

  • by benzapp ( 464105 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @08:45AM (#13071830)
    Afterall, if the Bush administration had such clear intelligence that Saddam had the WMDs, why couldn't they share that information with the Weapon inspectors?

    Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors when Clinton was president. From 1998 until the war began in 2003, there were no inspectors in the country. Further, he didn't offer to bring them back until the invasion was imminent with a carrier group in the persian gulf.

    While I think the entire war was a mistake, critical misunderstandings and outright lies such as this are rife in this entire debate. All your post has done is provide more evidence that when it comes down to it, partisan politics is more important than truth. You hate Bush, and thus your are special. You get to enjoy feeling of belonging that comes with sharing the views of almost every academic and media personality in the country.

    Meanwhile, human civilization is on the verge of collapse and democrats and republicans profit from it all.

    You are part of the problem, just as much as Bush is part of the problem.

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Working...