SCO Defends Against Open Source Advocates

[sime]

It gets wackier by the minute...

http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=13900143

Sime

[Calum]

do read perens' comments linked to in that article also.

just one small example of SCO's circular logic:

they are reported in that article to say the following two things:

* the public domain code under question on the famous slides has been refined since being released under the BSD licence, and incorporated into SCO owned versions of unix. lets assume this is true for now, even though Perens shows fairly conclusively that it is a lie.

* linux contains the refined code, stripped of SCO copyright, which is illegal.

Now let me just think for a moment, if it's got a SCO copyright, then presumably SCO stripped its original BSD copyright in order to use it in the first place. This is clearly a violation of the BSD licence which was attached to the code in question initially. This licence, unlike the GPL has been tested in court and found to be sound.

I for one wish they would hurry up and have their court battle so SCO can get the slapdown they need. Also it would enable the GPL to be tested in court for the first time.

[jasonlane]

What a bunch of cunts. can I say that, can I call them CUNTS?

[mobrien_12]

I love how they are backpedaling on the BPF

 

quote:
 But Sontag said the BPF routines were not intended to be an example of stolen code, but rather a demonstration of how SCO was able to detect "obfuscated" code, or code that had been altered slightly to disguise its origins. The slide displaying the code should have been written differently to reflect that intention, he said.

"It was an example of our ability to find moderately changed or obfuscated code, it was not an example we are using in court," Sontag said. "If they want to go off and make a big defense on that, they are welcome to it."

Well it certainly didn't do a very good job considering the Linux verison was a complete rewrite.  All it did was find code that did similar things.  There has to be lots of independently developed code that does the same thing!  Is this what their millions of lines claim is based on?

And this from Slashdot

     

quote:
kuwan writes "SCO has responded to the massive debunking of their 'evidence' last week. Chris Sontag claims that the BPF code was 'not intended to be an example of stolen code, but rather a demonstration of how SCO was able to detect "obfuscated" code.' That, however is a flat-out lie. If you look at their Obfuscated Copying slide (#15), it clearly states 'Obfuscated System V Code Has Been Copied Into Linux Kernel Releases 2.4x and 2.5x,' and then the slide labels the BPF code on the left as 'System V Code.'

And as for the malloc code being refined... yeah right... Lions' book said it was already heavily optimized and really couldn't be refined.  And their SCO SLIDE claims that the malloc routine was unpublished proprietary code which is outright WRONG (published TWICE in books, and released to public domain).

Are they lying or are they stupid?

[ August 27, 2003: Message edited by: M. O'Brien ]