SCO Says Email Is Inaccurate 326
daria42 writes "The SCO Group has slammed as 'inaccurate' suggestions that an e-mail from one of its own engineers showed Linux did not contain copyright Unix code, and even forwarded its own historical memo to journalists in an attempt to discredit the e-mail published on Groklaw." From the article: "This memo shows that Mr. Davidson's e-mail is referring to an investigation limited to literal copying, which is not the standard for copyright violations, and which can be avoided by deliberate obfuscation, as the memo itself points out..." We reported on the email yesterday.
Denial. Brilliant! (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporate America feels like a childish game of "You go home.... no you go home..... No you go home.... No"
Re:Denial. Brilliant! (Score:5, Funny)
Actually it reminds me more of the small, obnoxious kid at the sandbox, which sticks his fingers into his ears and yells I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! on the top of his lungs.
What a sorry bunch of wankers...
Re:Denial. Brilliant! (Score:5, Funny)
NEWSFLASH: SCO today denied reports that they think the world is flat. In a statement issued by CEO Daryl Whats-his-face, the company suggested that they had only meant to say that there were certain parts of it that appeared to be flat. "This is fully within the parameters of linguistic theory," said Daryl. "We never meant to imply that it's ALL flat." Daryl refused to elaborate on which areas of the world he thought "looked" flat.
Re:Denial. Brilliant! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Denial. Brilliant! (Score:5, Insightful)
It did for the first 6 months of the case. But recent studies have shown that pretty much nobody cares about it any more; if anything, it's accelerated adoption, because the continuing lack of evidence from SCO is making Linux look more stable, not less.
Re:Denial. Brilliant! (Score:2)
He is well beyond the point where that sort of statement could help his standing / hurt Linux in any way, even in the press. There is an old rule that you cant really trust a controversial news item until it has been honoured with a dementi. Ok, confirmation.
However, I wonder if that email might lead to another front in the SCO litigation labyrinth since it might be used to argue that SCOs going to court was frivoluos from the very beginning.
Re:Denial. Brilliant! (Score:5, Funny)
SCO: "NO! It's MY fingerpainting, and he took it from me! Mine, mine, mine, mine!!!"
Parent: "Honey, it's not your fingerpainting, I saw him make it the other day. It doesn't even look like yours."
SCO: (hands over ears) "La La LA LA LA, I can't hear you, La La LA LA LA!!!!"
Why backpedal? (Score:2)
Some people might call this 'reverse gear', but they've given it a new name and managed to patent it as a business method.
Re:Why backpedal? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Why backpedal? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Denial. Brilliant! (Score:5, Informative)
It's unfortunate that the idea of questioning powerful people has become taboo in our culture, as it gives those people that much more power to do whatever they please. The only way to keep power in check is for the relatively powerless to continually question it.
Re:Denial. Brilliant! (Score:3, Insightful)
People are full of practical common sense (Score:2)
Plus, people have no control over most of their lives. Buses on strike? Politicians starting wars? People simply have no control over that. Stock options, what a joke. Allegedly give people an incentive to work smarter and harder. Baldersash! The company's destiny is set by the CEO and COB and that's
Re:People are full of practical common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to serve up a flip answer, but perhaps that's what needs to happen. For example, we need to have the selection "NONE OF THE ABOVE" for each ballot choice in any election, to have the option to force the political system to endure starvation instead of a mandatory minimum feeding.
The system of corruption generally takes steps to make the environment safe for corruption. This tends to expand corruption. And such expansion crashes the system eventually. Knowing this, we should understand and prefer to have the harsh measure of medicine over the comfortable safety of increasing numbness (until the gangrene sets in and the limb falls off).
Corrupt systems have to be fixed one way or another. Either they get fixed by eternal vigilance, or they are fixed by extinction. People have to understand that even by making no choice whatsoever, they've still made a choice, hence they've still selected or supported an outcome.
Re:People are full of practical common sense (Score:4, Interesting)
The NOTA option might be better called "LEAVE THIS OFFICE OR POSITION EMPTY UNTIL YOU PROVIDE BETTER CANDIDATES". Which is why I said "starvation".
Sometimes revolution (hopefully peaceful) is inevitable if a political system is to reform.
I agree, but I'd rather not shoot people when it's clear that most people will run things more honestly upon the knowledge that yes, shooting will happen, and that yes, they will be targeted when it happens. Having forebrains, why can't we Humans understand inevitability?
Re:Denial. Brilliant! (Score:3, Informative)
Additional Mod: -3 Probably Microsoft troll.
Nice try, Darl, but... (Score:5, Informative)
--
Why didn't you know? [tinyurl.com]
Re:Nice try, Darl, but... (Score:5, Funny)
From a good source I know Linux does indeed contain lines that are exactly the same as in UnixWare Code.
e.g.:
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_INT; i++)
while (!done)
...
There are many more to find. SCO has even reason to believe many more companies has copied these exact same code fragments!
Re:Nice try, Darl, but... (Score:2, Funny)
Very unlikely that this kind code is on Linux (kernel), because that is not C.
(It looks like C++ code. )
Re:Nice try, Darl, but... (Score:3, Funny)
nothing wrong with that syntax in any C-based language (including C) other than the fact that there's no end to the statement.Now that represents the SCO lawsuit better.
Re:Nice try, Darl, but... (Score:2)
"for (int i"? C won't let you declare a variable in that context. D'uh!
Re:Nice try, Darl, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? Let's try it!
Hmm, it compiled. And note the conspicuous absence of any errors or warnings whatsoever, which indicate that the code in question is 100% strict valid C in accordance with the current C standard (ISO C99).
Re:Nice try, Darl, but... (Score:2)
Re:If you like (Score:2)
Re:Nice try, Darl, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Now, if we do a statistical analysis, given 26 lower case characters, 26 upper case characters, 10 numbers, and the '_', along with 9 letters in 'interrupt', we come to the conclusion that the odds of repeating that exact term just *once* (let alone the many times like Linux does) are about 16,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. Linux has, quite obviously, been seriously ripping off UnixWare.
Re:Nice try, Darl, but... (Score:3)
Someone tosses in a "one liner" and the
Its like the uber-geek grammar police for code -and they travel in packs around here.
Re:Nice try, Darl, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, later on they claim that 'SCO also pointed out its legal wrangling with IBM dealt with more recent versions of the Linux code than were mentioned in the memo'. Are they saying the more recent version was available on 1999, but not in 2002?
Re:Nice try, Darl, but... (Score:2)
Re:Nice try, Darl, but... (Score:5, Funny)
SCO hopes nobody reads... (Score:4, Informative)
So Swartz is telling SCO management what they want to hear, and this is also what they expect everyone to take from this 1999 letter. That is that linux infringes on SCO's copyrights.
Now what SCO likely is hopeful nobody reads from the 1999 letter are the following statements from Swartz after stating his claims:
And most importantly:
So the claims Swartz makes in this "preliminary conclusion" seem rather harsh considering he doesn't know the history of the code which he finds suspect.
And then the clincher. When Mike Davidson comes back with the analysis Swartz is waiting on we get from Mike's follow up email in 2002:
So it becomes obvious from the 1999 letter and the 2002 email that while Swartz did find similar code between linux and SCO's Unix in the end when the findings were presented to the SCO Unix source code expert it was discovered that none of the similar code belonged to SCO and there were no copyright infringements in linux.
I must say, it was nice reading the actual emails instead of listening to the obfuscation of facts from the lawyers and the media.
burnin
Re:This is the culture of leadership these days? (Score:3, Insightful)
Copy Right Violations (Score:4, Funny)
Not surprised... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not surprised... (Score:5, Funny)
SCO lawyer: You mean they are the same.
SCO engineer: No, I mean they are different.
SCO lawyer: You mean they are the same.
(Repeat the above 4000 times)
SCO engineer: Yes... they are the same master!
Re:Not surprised... (Score:5, Funny)
> SCO lawyer: You mean they are the same.
> SCO engineer: No, I mean they are different.
> SCO lawyer: You mean they are the same.
> (Repeat the above 4000 times)
> SCO engineer: Yes... they are the same master!
Linus: Different.
Darl: Same.
Linus: Different.
Darl: Same!
Linus: Same!
Darl: Different!
Judge: *slams gavel on Darl's beak* Case dismissed!
Darl: [twisting his beak from his jaw to the front of his face] Let's run through that again.
Linus: Same.
Darl: DIFFERENT! SUE THE TUX! SUE THE TUX!
Judge: *slams gavel on Darl's beak again*
Darl: [picking his beak off the floor] You're... dethpicable.
Deny mode. (Score:5, Insightful)
Clawing (Score:2)
Avoiding Jail (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Avoiding Jail (Score:3, Informative)
"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)."
Correct me if I'm wro
Re:Avoiding Jail (Score:4, Informative)
Which is not to say that the memo is worth a shit anyway, since whatever the results were they were discared in later analysis, as the email demonstrates, and in any case analysis by far more qualified people (like Brian Khernigan) has come up empty as well.
1999 invesitagtion trumps 2002 conclusion? (Score:5, Funny)
but the initial 1999 look trumps the more thorough 200*BANG*
my mind just exploded.
i hate this case.
Scrambling... (Score:5, Interesting)
Example (Score:2, Funny)
int var1;
And here's one they blatantly obfuscated:
Original:
int var1;
var1 = 0;
Obfuscated:
int var_1 = 0;
HOW DARE THEY!
Have your cake (Score:5, Informative)
Bible verse (Score:2, Funny)
What the? Is that a Bible Verse? John (3:16), Darl (21:50).
Is (Score:4, Funny)
oh, come on (Score:2)
yes, that *is* worse.
But... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
but Darl said there was literal copying! (Score:5, Interesting)
I smell a shareholder lawsuit, an SEC investigation, and hopefully, a Sarbanes-Oxley smackdown of such grand proportions as to make Bernie Ebbers look like a slap on the wrist.
-paul
Re:but Darl said there was literal copying! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:but Darl said there was literal copying! (Score:2)
You're right. It probably won't. But I think that sentiment is rooted in the hope that the courts will rule this was a completely frivolous action and therefore deserving of a decent knuckle-rap.
They are, after all
Re:but Darl said there was literal copying! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:but Darl said there was literal copying! (Score:2)
SCO's damage control is getting sloppy. The "literal copying" accusations were their biggest media grabs, and per this email, SCO was knowingly misleading their shareholders, the government and the media.
The only "delibirate obfuscation" can be found in SCO's pathetic and hysterical finger pointing, the trails of which form not only a rat's nest of weak arguments but - thanks to this email - apparently also the knot in the noose around their necks.
SCO's problem (Score:5, Funny)
Problem number 1: Linux doesn't contain any of SCO's intellectual property.
Go to the source (Score:5, Insightful)
A SCO developer running Windows 98? (Score:3, Interesting)
It contains the email header "X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I)".
Now, it would make sense for secretaries and perhaps other execs to be using Windows 98, but not one of their UNIX and Linux developers. Even if he wasn't using UnixWare or OpenServer as his workstation OS, he should very well have been using OpenLinux.
And remember, the email was sent in 2002. This is well after the release of Windows 2000. Even the use of Windows 2000 or Windows NT would be somewhat understandable. But Windows 98? That strikes me as very unsual.
Re:A SCO developer running Windows 98? (Score:5, Informative)
I am a Solaris/AIX/HPUX/Linux developer, and I have two (2) machines at home running Windows 98SE.
Works fine, never had the need to upgrade or change it out.
So, if you get an email from me, it will either be from one of a myriad of Unix boxes, or Windows 98.
Ratboy
Re:A SCO developer running Windows 98? (Score:2)
I was a Staff Engineer at SUN, and why, thanks for asking, I *do* have stuff in the Solaris Kernel.
Ratboy.
Re:A SCO developer running Windows 98? (Score:2)
Re:A SCO developer running Windows 98? (Score:5, Funny)
Notebook (Score:2)
Re:A SCO developer running Windows 98? (Score:3, Informative)
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
[1]
Again, Mr. Davidson was a SCO engineer, not a consultant.
In the Aug. 13, 2002, e-mail, engineer Michael Davidson said "At the end, we had found absolut
Tricky Linux programmers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tricky Linux programmers (Score:2)
Re:Tricky Linux programmers (Score:2)
I've speculated for a long time that they're attempting a "look and feel" landgrab.
This calls for tricky math (Score:2)
Except for sufficiently large values of 665.9999999.....
Re:Tricky Linux programmers (Score:2)
World history needs to be rewritten (Score:2, Redundant)
Liar Liar (Score:4, Funny)
Haven't I seen this before?
"Your honor, I object!"
"And why is that, Mr. Reede?"
"Because it's devastating to my case!"
"Overruled."
"Good call!"
Re:Liar Liar (Score:2, Funny)
Current events, calendar. (Score:5, Informative)
SCOvIBM: In the wake of the recent opinion [groklaw.net] issued by Judge Kimball, fact discovery will continue until 27 Jan 2006, and the parties must disclose with specificity all "allegedly infringing materials" by 22 Dec 2005. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting [groklaw.net] with each other on the privilege log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion [groklaw.net] awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.
SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.
RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due approximately 28 Sept 2005.
SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is expected around 17 July 2005.
Pending/Recently decided motions:
SCOvNovell:
RedHatvSCO:
SCOvAutoZone:
Please note that I've started construction of a motio [blogspot.com]
The beauty of the GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
You see, SCO shipped Linux for years. They did so, knowingly, under the GPL. The GPL was their license.
They claimed that they stopped shipping Linux as soon as they could when they realized that IBM was "dumping UNIX code into Linux". That's hogwash, but that's not my point.
The point is that now, when they claim there were pre-IBM copyright violations, they are caught by the GPL. They shipped all that code included in Linux and other supporting programs under the GPL.
If they believed there was SCO code hidden in Linux, shipping under the GPL means they approved of it.
Re:The beauty of the GPL (Score:3, Funny)
If A sells B a pregnant cow, and neither is aware of the pregnancy, who owns the calf?
Re:The beauty of the GPL (Score:5, Funny)
Chewbacca.
Let the Wookie win.
SCO IP website has a Swartz memo with IP copying (Score:2, Interesting)
- http://www.sco.com/scoip/swartz_memo.pdf [sco.com]
Which seems to be entirely different and gives concrete information on similarities and copied code. I haven't verified the conclusions but this is what SCO is now making public to confuse people.Re:SCO IP website has a Swartz memo with IP copyin (Score:3, Interesting)
Paging the Iraqui ex-Information Minister! (Score:5, Funny)
OMGWTFBBQ (Score:5, Interesting)
this memo clearly shows that SCO executives knew that there was no litteral copying in GNU/Linux, they then went out and made statements that they new were demonstrably false, i.e. Daryl's Line by Line copying comment. It is now very clear that SCO executives should at least be charged with fraud.
Re:OMGWTFBBQ (Score:3, Funny)
Re:OMGWTFBBQ (Score:3, Funny)
Ironically insanity is always a rational explanation
-
OT, but somewhat relevant to the issues at hand (Score:5, Interesting)
Someday, you will have to agree to a usage rights control contract for everything you buy.
Somebody will patent some kind of registration system to track all kinds of usages of all these products and you're be required to be a member of that before you'll even be able permitted to purchase anything at all, and you'll actually not be purchaing anything, but rather leasing the temporary usage rights for a short term.
Surprising actually. There is a better route. (Score:2)
They could easily get rid of 90% of incriminating emails that way.
"No your honour, that isn't evidence of us being lying weasels, it is spam. By the way, do you want to En14rg3 yur p3ni5?"
The Memo Was QUITE Clear (Score:2, Redundant)
They looked.
They found nothing.
Nothing to see here except more lies. Move along.
How many businesses ... (Score:2)
How many businesses have been harmed by SCO's miSCOnduct in the courts that diSCOuraged many potential customers from buying Linux based solutions? How many lawsuits could these businesses file to try to recover losses from this fiaSCO? What other smoking guns would these new suits diSCOver?
I, for one, would just like to be the one to eSCOrt Darl and the other SCOundrels and SCOfflaws to jail. But I'll just have to work, like everyone else, to just recover the SCOrched Linux landscape.
Take a look at their stock! It's falling! (Score:2)
Hot on the heels of yesterday's revelation that SCO's claims were outright lies, their stock started the day with a nose-dive to under 3.80
But since then, Microsoft (under cover of disguise) has poured more money into SCO's stock to give the appearance that the truth coming to light did not damage SCO.
I find that really funny, personally.
I hope Microsoft enjoys losing face and being laughed at like this.
It'll be REALLY funn
Confused? (Score:2)
Linus should (Score:3, Funny)
He'd have a better chance at winning that too than SCO ever will with their case.
Groklaw's take on the 1999 memo. (Score:5, Informative)
Here's what IBM apparently had to say when the 1999 email first surfaced in court:
SCO doesn't even know how to lie properly (Score:5, Informative)
"This memo shows that Mr. Davidson's e-mail is referring to an investigation limited to literal copying, which is not the standard for copyright violations, and which can be avoided by deliberate obfuscation, as the memo itself points out," the company continued. SCO also pointed out its legal wrangling with IBM dealt with more recent versions of the Linux code than were mentioned in the memo.
Forgetting the fact that Darl has publicly announced many times that literal copying is in Linux, SCO's current statement is still contradicted plainly in the email:
Of course SCO will probably now claim that "fuzzy matching" meant comparing furry code or some inane b.s. like that.
Re:Well finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well finally (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:tired (Score:3, Funny)
That comment has some relevance to the topic in hand, so by applying case law and using the BETAMAX case, that comment is not in fact off-topic because it has some relevance to the story discussed even if portion of it is not directly on-topic.
Re:tired (Score:2)
Re:Tired? No way! (Score:2)
Re:Tired? No way! (Score:3, Funny)
Jon Stewart would be Groklaw.
And Darl McBride would be played by Hayden Christiansen just so they could chop off his arms and legs at the end.
Cheers.
Re:Tired? No way! (Score:2)
How about Natalie Portman as Pamela Jones, the paralegal behind Groklaw?
On the other hand, Tom Cruise as an abstract entity... hmm... maybe that could work...
Re:Waiting patiently for the headline... (Score:2)
Re:Waiting patiently for the headline... (Score:2)
Re:I'm getting a bit bored with this (Score:5, Insightful)
If you had been following (I know, you're bored), SCO has not, to date, provided *any* evidence of code infringment in court. None. Dec 22 is the deadline for any evidence of code infringment to be shown. SCOs public statements as to the nature of the case vary hugely from what actually happens in the court room - they spin it as copyright about Linux in the media, but as a contract dispute about AIX in court. The impression that "they must have a case because it's lasted this long" is exactly one of the things they rely one - TV court drama to the contrary, judges very rarely toss cases early on. Especially technical ones like this, where even though the lack of merit may be obvious, it takes signifigant technical analysis to prove it.
For what it's worth, the judge has been seeming rather fed up with it too - when he issued his ruling on deadlines for discovery, he specifically pointed out SCOs misrepresentation in the media as compared to the total lack of evidence they've presented in court.
Re:I'm getting a bit bored with this (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, that's incorrect. But, you do get this watch and a year's supply of turtle wax.
I am not claiming that Groklaw is impartial but they do have a lot of facts there that you can go check. You might be interested in reading Judge Kimball ruling (from February 2005) where he expressed astonishment that SCO has not yet presented one shred of evidence that IBM has done anything wrong.