SCO's McBride Testifies "Linux Is a copy of UNIX" 446
eldavojohn writes "Here's a short update on the Novell Vs. SCO case we've been following. Our good friend Darl McBride made some interesting comments in court yesterday. He stated (under oath): 'Many Linux contributors were originally UNIX developers... We have evidence System V is in Linux... When you go to the bookstore and look in the UNIX section, there's books on "How to Program UNIX" but when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist. Linux is a copy of UNIX, there is no difference [between them]." This flies directly in the face of what SCO found in extensive investigations in 2002 and contradicts what SCO Senior Vice President Chris Sontag had just finished testifying earlier that day (testimony that McBride did not hear)."
Contradiction=bad things (Score:3, Insightful)
I figured they would do this (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux and UNIX are very similar. Just as a Toyota is similar to a Ford, 4 wheels, gas powered motor, disk brakes, etc. Hell take a tundra and an F-150 and put them side by side. Besides aesthetic differences, explain to me how one is "clearly" different than the other. Using SCO's logic, the Tundra contains a Ford.
They will use the similarities to confuse the jury who have no clue about the history of "*NIX* beginning with Multics. I certainly hope Novell is ready.
PARANOID FEAR: Novell is working with SCO to establish in a court of law, by losing, that Linux is the property of Novell.
Re:This should be good (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux is NOT Unix, there's never been shown to be any shared code, and SCO lost the battle years ago. It seems that once the lawyers took over SCO, it became just a litigation machine and lost whatever technological brainpower it once had. This illustrates why most lawyers should NOT be involved in running companies because their natural orientation is not toward creating products but rather toward, well, practicing law, which usually translates into litigation.
Re:Linux (mostly) follows the open group. (Score:4, Insightful)
O rly? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The awesome part about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, you've never been busted, or had much experience with "the system".
Criminal charges come like a tidal wave for larger offenses. Its never, "The state vs McBride on one count of perjury". Its the state vs McBride for a laundry list of ranges of crimes, and odds are one of em will be good enough.
Now with the supposed McBride quote to the supposed jury: "When you go to the bookstore and look in the UNIX section, there's books on "How to Program UNIX" but when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist."
That is utter bullshit. At least where I live, if I go to the local Barnes and Noble, and look in their computer section, there is the Linux section, and under it are the books on "UNIX".
Even though McBride is backwards in his evidence collecting, the same result could be said by a nutcase like him. That Linux is so much of a now popular version of UNIX that you can't even find a programming UNIX book, you have to look between the Linux books for a UNIX book.
I simply can't wait until this is over. This has been going on how long now? Like 6-7 years or so. My employers have lost some significant amount of money over this thing while I waste my time commenting/reading on slashdot about this train wreck.
Its also interesting to note that chages against companies take about an order of magnatude longer to try than those against an individual. For business, this is just part of the game of business. Even when you lose. as in theory McBride has done here, he has been able to finacially gain what? What have the lawyers and other people part of the pump and dump scam gained as a result of this?
Obviously, you need a better lawyer. (Score:4, Insightful)
I worked once for the law firm that helped invent the class action law suit, helped sue Exxon for billion dollars in Valdez and won, helped police the securities industry when there was no enforcement, brought down Milken...and that was just to start.
There is not a writer for a TV show or a movie that could even accurately depict just how smart these people are. Those lawyers ask those sorts of questions all the time. These are all Ivy Leaguers that came from the likes of U-Penn, Harvard and they do. It wasn't even worth lying to these people because they could just pick you apart like a rotisserie chicken and you wouldn't even know it until they are ready to throw the bones out.
Re:So if Novell Owns Unix... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dear Mr. McBride, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The awesome part about this (Score:4, Insightful)
THEN you have to show that the lie was material to the case. If I testify in a copyright suit and blurt out "the Sun doesn't exist!" I'm not going to jail, because that's not material to the case.
Re:Hopefully (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying Linux isn't POSIX is like saying Mesa isn't OpenGL - it is a functional work-alike that runs the same code using the same API. It is written from scratch to not require paying for the certification license or per-unit fees (I recall SGI required OpenGL vendors pay a small per-unit fee in the 1990s - I'm not sure if that is how it is licensed today).
not too often the case of how these go (Score:5, Insightful)
Come to think of it, Lindows wasn't really a big-guy but I guess Microsoft had to stop them one way or another. I'm thinking of this case because it is another case where the outcome wasn't what was expected. ie, Microsoft almost lost their "Windows" trademark and the result was that Lindows became Linspire, Lindows got paid millions, and Lindows got 5 years of licensed software.
At least the Lindows vs MSFT case only took a couple years. Had it taken longer and Lindows/Linspire might have had to settle for much much less. They were not rolling in the doe.
This case has been dragging on for over 6 years and in that time, just little me, I've had small business owners mention licensing issues with regard to using Linux and OSS. The exact reason why I feel Microsoft and Sun helped fund SCO and the reason why Microsoft created their own SCO-ish licensing threats against Linux and OSS.
Unfortunately, Microsoft is learning alot from all this and will most likely stay way clear of filing suit against any of the big companies using or backing Linux and OSS. They know that they get more value from threats and little fear of having those threats exposed as long as they stay out of court. Their game is to use the threats to keep the Linux/OSS market contained and then use their wealth to pay off any large business thinking of being a GNU/Linux/OSS poster child. They have the funds to keep down alot of the uprising and the business customers are the ones willing to take short term payola from Microsoft to keep the current course with running Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, and Microsoft Server software.
Where this is not in Microsoft's control is in government and the public sector. They've already had a tough time using the BSA to muscle some school districts into longterm licensing contracts when the Linux K12LTSP group showed the way to Microsoft/BSA independence and low cost computing. Recent financial belt tightening is opening the door further and there's little Microsoft can do but deeply discount their software and they are already showing signs of reduced revenues( (24%) this quarter ) from their big money maker, the Windows OS.
SCO is smart to try to devalue the licenses paid by Microsoft and Sun and if they are able to pull it off and get Novell out of the revenue stream, Novell also knows that Microsoft and Sun will not ask for their money back. After all, both Microsoft and Sun got what they paid for and that was not really a license for UNIX. IMO.
One more thing, McBride should get burned for what he's done to SCO, IBM, Novell, AutoZone, and all others involved. It was a scam of epic proportions and took way too long. IMO.
LoB
Re:Contradiction=bad things (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean because it doesn't have to do with income? The entire case is about who is entitled to what, and whether they're going to get their entitlements. But regardless, 18 U.S.C. Â 1621 [cornell.edu] disagrees with you. Perhaps you could provide a cite? As the law is written, any lie under oath is perjury.
If your argument is that the individual was making a statement about interpretation of fact, and thus perjury does not apply, it is a stupid argument - because earlier cases have already established that Darl is wrong about this particular issue. But that does not seem to be your argument, so I am willing to believe that you are not an idiot (only a coward) and that there could be a point to what you have said. I am waiting to hear it.
Re:OT: Your sig... you still don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because, you know, having good discussions benefits the whole community, and points just benefit my own karma.
Oh but they do... (Score:3, Insightful)
This shows the true ownership belongs to the government. We are merely "leasing" the land from the government.
Pretty bad way of stating it (Score:3, Insightful)
This is true, but not because Linux is a copy of UNIX, but because Linux and UNIX both conform to a published API standard (POSIX). One can easily implement something that behaves like UNIX without looking at a single line of code, because the API (POSIX) is documented, standardized, and published.
Re:Linux IS a copy of Unix (Score:3, Insightful)